Chapter 21

Your next procedure is to your discourse of figures or images, and my animadversions upon it. And here you say, you will come up close to me; you mean in replying to what I delivered about it. But Sir, I thought this had been contrary to your design; you professed at the beginning of your Epistle that it was so, and have made good use of that declaration of your self, by avoiding every thing in my discourse that you found your self pressed with, and too difficult a task for you to deal withal. Why do you now begin to forget your self and to cast off the pretence you have hitherto shaddowed your self under, and excused your self by from tergiversation? Surely you think you are upon this head able to say somewhat to the purpose, which you despaired of doing upon others of as great importance, and therefore now you may argue and dispute, which before the design of your Fiat would not permit you to do. As far as I can observe, you speak nothing at any time but what you think is at present for your turn. But whether it have any consistency with that which elsewhere you have delivered, you make it not much your concernment to enquire. But we shall quickly see whether you had any just ground of encouragement to harness your self, and to come up, as you speak, close to me in this business or no. It may be before the close of our discourse you will begin to think it had been as well for you to have persisted in your former avoidance, as to make this profession of a close dispute; and whatever you pretend to the contrary, really you have done so. You hide the opinion and practice of your Church about the worship of images which you seem to be ashamed of, instead of defending them; and except against some passages in my animadversions instead of answering the whole, which you seem to pretend to. I shall therefore declare what is the true judgement of your Church in this matter, and then vindicate the passages of my discourse which you take notice of in your exceptions, and under both heads declare the abomination of your faith and practice in your doctrine about images and worship of them.

The doctrine of your Church in this matter I suppose we may be acquainted with from the determinations of your councils, the explication of your most famous doctors, the practice of your people, and the distinctions used by you to quit your selves from idolatry in your doctrine and practice. And you will thereby learn, or may at least to what purpose it is for you to seek to palliate and hide the deformity of that which your Mother and her wise men have made naked to all the world.

Your Council of Trent is very wary in this matter, as it was in most of its other affairs: and indeed seeing it was resolved not to give place to the Truth, it became it so to be, that it might keep any footing in the minds of men, and not tumble headlong into contempt and reproach. Many difficulties it had to wrestle withal. It saw the practice of their Church which was not totally to be deserted, least the great mysterie of its Infallibility should be impaired, and its nakedness laid open: the general complaint on the other side of learned and sober men, that under a pretence of Image Worship as horrible Idolatry was brought into the Church of God, as ever was practiced among the Heathen, did not a little perplex it. It had also the various and contradictory opinions of the great doctors of your Church, and masters of your faith about the kind of worship which is due to images, all which had great followers ready to dispute endlessly in the maintenance of their several conceits. Amidst these rocks and oppositions, the Fathers found no way to sail safely, but by the help of general and ambiguous words; a course which in the like difficulties had frequently before stood them in good stead. Therefore they so expressed themselves, that no party at variance among them might think their opinions condemned, that the general practice of their Church might be countenanced, and yet no particular asserted that was most obnoxious to the exceptions of the Lutherans. Thus then they speak, Imagines porro Christi, Deiparae Virginis & aliorum Sanctorum in Templis praeertim habendas & retinendas; eisque debitum honorem & venerationem impertiendam, non quod credatur—quoniam honos qui eis exhibetur refertur ad Prototypa, quae illae representant; with much more to that purpose. And we may observe, That the Decree speaks only of the images of Christ, the blessed Virgin, and other Saints, not expressly mentioning the images of God the Father, of the Trinity, and of the Holy Ghost, nor of Angels, which they knew to be made, and to be had in veneration in their Church, nor do they anywhere reject the use, making, or worshipping of them. Yes, in their following words they do plainly allow of the figuring of the Deity. Quod, say they, si aliquando historias & narrationes [illegible] Scripturae cum id indoctae plebi expediet exprimi & figurari contigerit, doceatur populus, non [illegible] divinitatem figurari quasi corporeis oculis consp[illegible]i, vel coloribus aut figuris exprimi possit. The words are as most of the rest in this particular, as ambiguous as the Oracles of Delphos. This cannot be denied to be in them however, That the unlearned people are to be taught, that the Deity is not painted or figured, as though it could be seen or expressed by colors, but for some other end, as it seems for their instruction; which indeed is honest and fair dealing; for they plainly tell them that by their pictures they teach them lies; the language of the picture being, that God may be so pictured, whereby all your pictures and images of God the Father as an old man, of the Trinity as one person with three faces, and the Holy Ghost as a Dove, are approved. 2. Religious worship of images is confirmed, due honor and veneration or worship is to be given to them, says the Council. Now it is not mutual complement they are discoursing about. There is no such intercourse between their images and them ordinarily, though sometimes civil salutations have passed between them; nor is it any token of civil subjection, for images have no eminency or authority of that kind; but it is divine or religious veneration, and worship which they affirm is to be assigned to them. 3. They say that due honor and veneration that is religious, is to be assigned to them; but what in especial that honor and worship is, they do not determine; whether it be the same that is due to the s[illegible]mplar as some, the most of your divines think, or whether it be an honor of some inferior nature as others contend, pugnant ipsi ne potesq, the Synod leaves them where it found them, sufficiently at variance among themselves. 4. They further assert the worship that is given by them to images to be religious or divine; in that they affirm the honor done to the image, is referred to the Prototype which it does represent. Now suppose this be Jesus Christ himself; I suppose that they will grant that all the honor we yield to him by any way or means is divine or religious, and therefore so consequently that which they would have to be given to his image, (that is a stock or stone which they fancy so to be) must be so also. Now Sir, you may see from hence, what it is that you are to speak to and to defend, or else to hold your peace in this matter. And I shall yet make it a little more plain to you. Your Trent Council approves and commends the second Council of Nice as that which taught and confirmed that doctrine and practice about images, and their worship which your Church allows. I shall therefore briefly let you know what was the judgement of that Council, and what was the doctrine and practice confirmed in it, under many dreadful Anathematisms.

This Second of Nice, or Pseudo-Synod of the Greeks, as it is called by the Council of Frankford, whereunto we are sent by the Tridentine Fathers to be instructed in the due worship of images, was assembled by the authority of Irene the Empress, a proud imperious woman, & her Son Constantine, whose eyes she afterwards put out, and thrust him into a Monastery in the year, 490. Tharasius was then Patriarch of Constantinople and Hadrian the first Bishop or Pope of Rome. This man most zealously or superstitiously addicted to the worship of images, and that contrary to the judgement of most of the Western Churches, as soon afterwards appeared in the Council holden at Frankford, by the authority of Charls the Great, had a particular advantage both over the Empress and the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Eastern Empire being then greatly weakened by its own intestine divisions, and pressed on all sides by the Saracens, the Empress began to entertain some hopes of relief from the French in the West, whose power was then grown very great: and to that end solicited a marriage for her Son with the daughter of Charls the Great; and supposed that she might be helped therein by the mediation of Hadrian: the Bishops of Rome having no small hand in the promotion of the attempt of Pipin and Charls the Great for the Crown of France, and afterwards for the conquest of Italy and Germany. And besides, she was a woman herself zealously addicted to that kind of superstition which Hadrian had espoused, as having in the time of Leo her Husband kept her images in private, contrary to what she had solemnly sworn to her Father, as Credenus relates in his Annals. As for Tarasius, he was contrary to all ecclesiastical canons, of a mere layman at once per saltum made Patriarch of Constantinople, which Hadrian upon his first hearing of, greatly exclaimed against, and refused to receive him into the society of Patriarchs upon his sending of his significatory Epistle. This is fully declared in the Epistle of Hadrian extant in the Acts of the Council. But yet afterwards bethinking himself how useful this man might be to his design in getting the worship of images established in the East, he declares that if he will use means to get the heresy as he called it of the image-opposers extirpated, and their veneration established, he would consent to his election and consecration, or else not. Finding how the matter was like to go with him, this lay-Patriarch undertakes the work and effectually prosecutes it in this Synod assembled at Nice by the authority of Irene the Empress and her Son Constantine. But by the way, when the Council was assembled, he omitted not the opportunity of improving his own interest, getting himself styled Oecumenical, or Universal Patriarch, which Anastasius Bibliothecarius in his dedication of his Translation of the Acts of this Convention to John the eighth, bewails, and ascribes it to the flattery of the Greeks. The frauds, forgeries and follies of this Council, and ignorance and dotage of the Fathers of it, have been sufficiently by others discovered. Our present concernment is only to enquire, First, what they taught concerning image worship: and Secondly, how they proved what they taught, seeing to them we are sent by the Tridentine Decree to be instructed in your faith in this matter.

First, they make the having and use of images in the worship of God of indispensable necessity, so that they anathematize and cast out of the communion of the Church, all that refuse to receive and use them according to their prescript. Yes, they proceed so far as in their approbation of the Confession of Theodosius the Bishop of Ammoria, as to denounce an Anathema against them that do but doubt of their reception: [in non-Latin alphabet]: so he closes his Confession which they all approve as Orthodox, Anathema to them that are ambiguous or doubtful in their minds, and do not confess with their hearts (ex animo) that sacred images are to be worshipped; wherein they and you with them add Schism to their Idolatry, casting out of the Churches those who offend neither against the Gospel, nor the determination of any General Council of old; making the rule of your communion to consist in a sorry piece of will-worship of your own invention; which doubles the crime of your superstition, and lays an intolerable entanglement upon the consciences of men, which are persuaded from the Scripture, that they shall be accursed of God if they do receive images into his worship, after the manner of your prescription.

Secondly, they affirm an hundred times over, that images are religiously to be adored and worshipped, that is, with divine worship. So in the Confession of the same Theodosius, [in non-Latin alphabet], and so of the rest: I confess, consent to, receive, embrace or salute, I worship or adore the image of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Blessed Virgin, and of the Apostles and Martyrs. The same is affirmed in the Epistle of Hadrian recited in the second Act of the Synod, which they all approve; and afresh curse all them that dogmatize or teach any thing against that worship of images. And Gregory the Monk no small man among them, affirms that he hoped by his Confession of this doctrine he believed, he should obtain the forgiveness of his sins, Act. 2. And John who falsely pretended himself to be delegated from the Oriental Patriarchs, when he was sent only by a few ignorant Monks of Palestine, prefers images above the Word itself, Act. 4. [in non-Latin alphabet]; an image is greater than the word; and again [in non-Latin alphabet], honorable images are equivalent to the Gospel. And they prove the worship they intend to be divine by their wise explication of that text, The Lord your God shall you worship, and him only shall you serve, [in non-Latin alphabet]. To the word 'you shall serve,' only is subjoined, but not to the word 'worship'; so that it is lawful to worship (images) but not to serve them. A wise business! but it discovers sufficiently what is the worship which they ascribe to images, even the same that is given to God; for if we may believe them, other things are not excluded from communion with God in this matter of worship and adoration. From where the Council of Frankford does expressly charge them, that they taught that images were to be adored with the honor due to God, Act. 4. And so much weight do they lay upon this devotion that they approve the counsel given by Theodorus the Abbot to the Monk whom the Devil vexed with temptations for worshipping the image of Christ, who told him that he had better resort to all the stews in the town, than cease worshipping of Christ in his image; [in non-Latin alphabet]: it seems it was uncleanness that the Devil tempted him to, as well knowing that spiritual and corporal fornication commonly go together.

Thirdly, in every session they instance in some particulars wherein the adoration of images which they professed did consist; as in particular in religious saluting of them, kissing of them, bowing before them, and so adoring of them. To this purpose their words are very express. Now all these were ever esteemed tokens, pledges and expressions of religious or divine worship, and were the very ways whereby the Heathen of old expressed their veneration of their images and idols. Job intimating the way whereby they worshipped the Sun, Moon, and host of Heaven, which crimes he denies himself to be guilty of, tells us, that when he considered the Sun and the Moon, his heart did not seduce him that he should put his hand to his mouth, that is to salute them; for this, says he, had been to deny God above (Job 31:26, 27). As Catullus, Constiteram Solem exorientem sorte salutans, Cum subito à laeva Roscius exoritur. He stood saluting, or worshipping the rising Sun. And that also was their meaning in kissing of them, or kissing their hands in saluting of them (Hosea 13:2). Let them kiss the calves, that is worship them; express their religious adoration of them by that outward sign. As Cicero in Verr. 4. Herculis simulacrum non solum venerari, sed etiam osculari soliti fuerunt. So Minutius Felix tells us, that his companion Caecilius coming where the image of Serapis was set up, admovit manum ori & osculum labris pressit, put his hand to his mouth and kissed it, as worshipping of it. And for creeping, kneeling, or bowing, it is so certain an evidence of divine worship, that all worship both false and idolatrous or true, is oftentimes expressed thereby. So the worshipping of Baal, is called bowing the knee to Baal. They that bowed the knee to him or his image, in their so doing worshipped him (1 Kings 19:18; Romans 11:4). And where God promises to bring all nations to the worship of himself he says, they shall bow the knee to him (Romans 14:11). So that these are all expressions of religious worship, and they are all accursed over and over by the Council, who do not by these means express their worship of images. This is the doctrine, this is the practice which the Tridentine decree approves of, and sends us to learn of the second Synod of Nice. And this they express in most places, in those very terms, that were used by the Pagans in the worship of their idols, making indeed no distinction, but that whereas the Pagans worshipped the images of Jupiter and Minerva and the like, they in the like manner worshipped the images of Christ and his Apostles. And therefore in the Indies, the Catholic Spaniards took away the Zemes or images of their idols, that the poor natives had before, and gave them the images of Christ and his Mother in their stead.

This being the doctrine of the Council it may not be amiss to consider a little how they proved and confirmed it. Two things they principally insisted on: 1. Testimonies of Scripture. 2. Miracles. Some sayings also they produced out of some ancient writers of the Church, but all of them either perverted or forged. The Scriptures they insisted on were all of them gathered together in the Epistle of Pope Hadrian, which was solemnly assented to by the whole Council. And they were these: God made man of the dust of the Earth after his own image (Genesis 1); Abel by his own choice offered a sacrifice to God of the firstlings of his flock (Genesis 4); Adam of his own mind called all the beasts of the field by their proper names (Genesis 2); Noah of his own accord built an altar to the Lord (Genesis 8); Abraham of his own free will erected an altar to the glory of God (Genesis 11); Jacob having seen in his sleep the angels of God ascending and descending by the ladder, set up the stone on which his head lay for a pillar (Genesis 28); and again, he worshipped on the top of his staff (Genesis 29); Moses made the brazen Serpent, and the Cherubims; Isaiah says in those days there shall be an altar to the Lord, and it shall be for a sign and a testimony (Isaiah 19); David the Psalmist says, Confession and beauty are before him; and again, Lord I have loved the beauty of your house; and again, Your face Lord will I seek (Psalm 26); and again, The rich among the people shall bow themselves before your face (Psalm 44); and again, The light of your countenance is signed or lifted up upon us (Psalm 4). Si hoc non sit testimoniorum satis, ego nescio quid sit satis: he must be very refractory, and deserve a world of anathemas that is not convinced by all these testimonies, that images ought to be worshipped. But, quod non dant proceres, dabit Histrio; if the Scripture will not do it, miracles shall: of these we have an endless number heaped up by the good fathers to prove their doctrine, and justify their practice. The worst is that Tharasius almost spoils the market, by acknowledging that the images in their days would work none of the miracles they talked of, so that they had them all upon hearsay (Act. 4): [in non-Latin alphabet] says he, [in non-Latin alphabet]. But if any should say, Why do our images work no miracles? to them we answer, because as the Apostle says, signs are for unbelievers, not for them that believe. And yet the misadventure of it is, that the most of the miracles which they report and build their faith upon, were wrought as by so among their chiefest believers. And what were the miracles themselves they boasted of? Such a heap of trash, such a bundle of lies, as the like were scarce ever heaped together, unless it were in the Golden Legend. Hadrian insists on the leprosy and cure of Constantine, as loud a lie as any in the Talmud or Alcoran. Theodorus of Myra tells us of a Deacon that dreamed he saw one in his sleep whom he took to be Saint Nicholas (Act. 4). Another tells us a tale of one that struck a nail in the forehead of an image, and was troubled with a pain in his head until it was pulled out. Another dreamed, that the blessed Virgin brought Cosma and Damiana to him and commanded them to cure him of his distemper; one man's daughter, another's wife, is helped by those images. And they all consent in the story of the image of Christ made without hands, or human help by God alone ([in non-Latin alphabet]), that he sent to Abgarus King of the Edessenes; as bellowing a lie as any in the herd. So true was it, that the Council of Frankford affirmed of this idolatrous conventicle, that they endeavoured to confirm their superstition by feigned wonders and old wives' tales.

Sir, This is the doctrine, this the confirmation of it, which we are directed to, and enjoined to embrace by your Tridentine decree. This is that, yes and more also, as you will hear by and by, that you are bound to maintain and make good, if you intend to say any thing to the purpose about figures or images; for you must not think by your sleight flourishes to blind the eyes of men in these days as you have done formerly. Own your doctrine and practice, or renounce it; this tergiversation is shameful; and you will yet find yourself farther pressed with the doctrine of chiefest pillars of your church, and the public practice of it. For though this superstitious conventicle at Nice, departed from the faith of the ancient church, and was quickly reproved, and convinced of folly by persons of more learning, sobriety and modesty than themselves in the very age wherein they lived, yet it rose not up to the half of the abominations, in the filth and guilt whereof your church has since rolled itself. And yet because I presume you are well pleased with these Nicenians, who gave so great a list to the setting up of your idols, I shall give you a brief account, both what was the judgement and practice of them that went before them in this matter, as also of some that followed after them, with joint consent detesting your folly and superstition. You tell us somewhere in your Fiat, that the primitive Christians had the picture or half portraiture of Christ upon their altars. I suppose you did not invent it yourself; I wish you had told us of the legend that suggested it to you. For you seem in point of story to be conversant in such learned authors, as few can trace you in. If you please to have a little patience, I shall mind you of some that give us another account of things in those days.

1. Some there are, of the first Christians, who give us an account of the whole worship of God with the manner and form of it, which was observed in their assemblies in their days. So does Justin Martyr in his Apologies, Tertullian in his, Origen against Celsus with some others. Now in none of these, is there any one word concerning images, their use, or their worship in the service of God, although they descend to describe very minute particulars and circumstances of their way and proceeding.

2. Some there are, who give an account of the persecutions of several churches, with the outrages of the Pagans against their assemblies, the Scriptures, all the ordinances and worship, as do those golden fragments of the first and best antiquity, the Epistles of the Churches of Vienna and Lyons, to the parishes of Asia, of the Church of Smyrna about the martyrdom of Polycarpus, preserved and recorded by Eusebius; and yet make no mention of any figures, pictures, or images of Christ, the Blessed Virgin or his Apostles, or of any rage of their adversaries against them, or of any spite done to them, which they would not have omitted, had there been any such in use among them.

3. There are besides these some unquestionable remnants of the conceptions that the wisest and soberest of the heathen had concerning the Christians and their worship: as in the Epistle of Pliny about their assemblies, and the rescript of Trajan, as also in Lucian Philopatris; in none of which is any intimation of the Nicene images or their adoration. It may be you will undervalue this consideration, because built upon testimony negatively, when it does not follow, that because such and such mentioned them not, therefore they were not then in use or being. But Sir, an argument taken from the absolute silence of all approved authors, concerning any thing of importance, supposed to be or happen in their days, and who would have had just occasion to make mention of it, had any such thing then been in rerum naturâ, is as great an evidence, and of as full a certainty, as the monuments of times are capable of. Is it possible for any rational man to conceive, that if there had been such an use and veneration of images in the primitive churches as is now in the Roman, or that the reception and veneration of them was made the tessara of church communion, as it is by the Nicene conventicle, that all the first writers of Christianity treating expressly and purposely of the assemblies of the Christians and the worship of God in them, with the manner and circumstances thereof, would have been utterly silent of them; or that those who set down and committed to record all the particularities of the Pagans' rage in scattering their assemblies, would not drop one word of any indignity showed to any of their sacred images, when they pass not by their wrath against their houses, goods and cattle? Such things are fond to imagine.

2. Many of the ancients, do note it as an abomination in some of the first heretics, that they had introduced the use of images into their worship, with the adoration of them. Theodoret, Haeret. sub. lib. 1. tells us, that Simon Magus gave his own image and that of Selene to be worshipped by his followers. And Irenaeus, lib. 1. cap. 23. that the followers of Basilides used images and invocations: and cap. 24. that the Gnostics had images both painted ones and carved, and that of Christ, which they said was made originally by Pontius Pilate, and this they adored. And so does Epiphanius also, Tom. 2. lib. 1. Haer. 27. Carpocrates procured the images of Christ and Paul to be made and adored them: and the like is recorded of others. Now do you think they would have observed and reproved this practice as an abomination in the heretics, if there had been any thing in the churches' usage that might give countenance thereunto? Or at least that they would not have distinguished between that abuse of images, which they condemned in the heretics, and that use which was retained and approved among themselves. But they are utterly silent, as to any such matter, contenting themselves to report and reprove the superstition and idolatry of the heretics in their adoration of them. But this is not all.

They positively deny that they had any images or made any use of them, and defend themselves against the charge of the Pagans against them for professing an imageless Religion. Clemen. Alexand. Strom, Lib. 6. plainly and openly confesseth and testifieth, that Christians had no images in the world. And in his Adhortat. ad Gent. he positively asserts that the arts of painting and carving as to any religious use were forbidden to Christians, and that in the worship of God they had no sensible image made of any sensible matter, because they worshipped God with understanding. What was the judgement of Tertullian, is known from his book de Idololatria, from where if we should transcribe what is argumentative against image worship, very little would be remaining. But of all the Antients Origen does most clearly manifest what was the doctrine and practice of the Church of God in his days; as in other places, so in his seventh book against Celsus he directly handles this matter: Celsus charged the Christians, that they made use of no images in the worship of God, telling them that therein they were like the Persians, Scythians, Numidans and Seres, all which impious nations hated all images, as the Turks do at this day. To which discourse of his, Origen returning answer, grants that the Christians had no images in their sacred worship, no more than had the barbarous nations mentioned by Celsus; but withal adds the difference that was between those and these; and tells you, that their abstinence from image worship was on various accounts. And after he has shewed therefore those nations received them not, he adds that Christians and Jews abstained from all sacred use of images because of God's command. You shall fear (as he reads the text) the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve; and you shall not make to your self any graven image, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, and adds, that they were so far from praying to the images as the Pagans did, that says he, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], a thing expresly commanded in the Nicene Conventicle, we do not give any honor at all to images, least we should give countenance to the error of ignorant people, that there were somewhat of divinity in them; with very much more to the same purpose, expresly condemning all the use of images in the worship of God, and openly testifying that there was no such usage among the Christians in those days heard of in the world. Arnobius or Minutius Faelix acknowledgeth the same; Cruces nec colimus nec optamus, we do no more worship crosses than desire them, and grants that Christians had nulla note simulachra, because no image could be made to or of him whom alone they worshipped. What was the judgement of the Elibertine Council I have before told you. Lactantius in his Institut. ad Constant. lib. 2. by an happy anticipation, answers all the arguments that you use to this day, in defence of your image worship, and concludes peremptorily, that where there are any images, there is no religion; shewing how perverse a thing it is that the image of a dead man should be worshipped by a living image of God. The time would fail me to relate the words of Eusebius, Athanasius, Hilarius, Ambrosius, Cyrillus, Chrysostome, Epiphanius, Hierom, Austin, and others to the same purpose. I cannot but think that it is fully evident to any one that consults antiquity, that the image use and worship, which is become the Tessera of your church communion, by your espousing the canons and determinations of the second Nycene Synod, was in part utterly unknown to, and in part expresly condemned by the whole primitive church for 600 years after Christ; and that you have plainly by your Tridentine decree and Nicene Anathematismes cut off your selves from the communion of the Catholick Church of Christ, and all particular assemblies that worship him in sincerity, for the space of some hundreds of years in the world.

Thus things went in the Church of God before your Nicene Convention. How did they succeed afterwards? Did image worship presently prevail upon their determinations? Or was that then the faith of the generality of the Church of Christ, which was declared by the fathers of that Convention? Nothing less; no sooner was the rumor of this horrible innovation in Christian religion spread abroad in the world, but that upon it there was a full assembly of 300 bishops of the Western Provinces assembled at Franckeford in Germany, wherein the superstition and folly of the Nicene Assembly was layed open, their arguments confuted, their determinations rejected, and image worship absolutely condemned, as forbidden by the word of God, and contrary to the antient constant known practice of the whole Church of God.

And now Sir as I said you may begin to see what you have to do, if you intend to speak any thing to the purpose concerning your figures and images. You must take the Decree of your Council of Trent, and the Nicene Canons therein confirmed, and prove, confirm, and vindicate them from the opposition made to them by Tertullian, Arnobius, Origen, Lactantius, the Synod of Franckeford and others of the Antients innumerable by whom they are rejected and condemned; and yet when you have done so, if you are able so to do, your work is not one quarter at an end. You can make nothing of this business until you have confuted or burned the Scripture it self, wherein your images making and image worship is as fully condemned as it is possible any superstition or idolatry should be. Your present loose discourses, whereby you endeavour to possess the minds of unwary men, that you do not do that which indeed you do every day, and which almost all the world know that you do, and which you curse others for not doing, will not with considering persons redound at all to your advantage.

2. That you may the better also discern what is incumbent on you, and expected from you the next time you talk of figures, I shall make bold to mind you of what is the doctrine of the chief masters and instructors of your Church, from where certainly we may better learn what the doctrine and practice of it is, than from one who discovers enough in what he says and writes, to keep us from laying any great weight on his authority. Now I confess that you do in this, as in sundry other points of your religion, give us an egregious specimen of that consent and unity among yourselves which you so frequently boast of. Raphael de Torre in his Sum. Relig. Quaest. 94. Artic. [•]. disput. 6. dub. 5. gives us an account of five several opinions maintained by your doctor in this matter, of all which he rejects that only of Durand and some others, affirming that images are not worshipped properly but only improperly and abusively, as rash and savouring of heresy. The same does Bellarmine also; and the truth is that that opinion of Durrand, Gerson, and some others is plainly condemned by the Tridentine Decree, as has been already declared. The authors of the other four opinions, though they differ among themselves and have several digladiations about some expressions and distinctions framed merely in their own imaginations, agree well enough, that images are religiously to be worshipped. Worshipped religiously they are to be, but whether per se and absolutely, directly and ultimately, whether with the same kind of worship wherewith that is to be worshipped which they represent, they are not so fully agreed as might be desired in a matter of this importance. For it is justly to be feared that while your doctors are wrangling, your people are committing as gross idolatry as any of the heathen were guilty of. In the mean time, the most prevalent opinion of your doctors is that of Thomas and his followers, that images are to be adored with the same kind of worship wherewith that which they represent is to be worshipped. And therefore whereas the Lord Christ is to be worshipped with Latria, that which is peculiar in your judgement to God alone, it follows says he, that his image is to be worshipped with the same worship also. And as some of your learned men do boast, that this indeed is the only approved opinion in this matter in your Church; so the truth is, if you will speak congruously and at any consistency with yourselves it must be so. For whereas you lay the foundation of all your worship of them, be it of what sort it will, in that figment, that the honor which is done to the image redounds to him whose image it is, if the honor done to the image be of an inferior sort and kind to that which is due to the exemplar of it by referring that honor thereunto, you debase and dishonor it, by ascribing less to it than is its due. If then you intend to answer just expectation in this matter, the next time you speak of figures pray consider what your Thomas teaches as the doctrine of your Church, 3. p. q. 25. ae. 3. which Azorius says is the constant judgement of divines, lib. 9. cap. 6. As also the exposition of the Tridentine Decree by Suarez Tom. 1. d. 54. §. 4. Vasquez, Costerus, Bellarmine and others. And

3. You may do well to consider the practice and usage of your Catholic people all the world over, especially in those places where you have preserved them from being disturbed in their devotion, by the arguments and exceptions of Protestants, as also the direction that is given them for the exercise of their devotion in that prescription of rites and prayers which is afforded to them. Is not your bowing, kneeling, creeping, kissing, offering, singing, praying to the Cross and images notorious? Yes, your placing your trust and confidence in them; yes, have you omitted any of the abominations of the heathen, that you have not acted over again to provoke the Lord to anger? And

4. Do you think to relieve them from the guilt of idolatry by a company of distinctions, which neither they nor you understand? The next time you see one of your Catholics worshipping an image upon his knees, I pray go to him and tell him that he must worship the image with dulia, or superdulia, but not with latria, or if with latria, yet not by itself and simply but after a sort, analogically and reductively, or that he is about a double worship; one terminated in the image, and the other passing by it to the exemplar of it, and you will find what thanks he will give you for your good instruction. And how small a portion are these of that mass of distinctions which you have coined to free them from idolatry who worship images, who all the while understand not one word of what you intend by them, nor can any rational man reduce them to any thing intelligible!

Sir, in this matter of images you talk of coming up close to your business, and I was willing to take a little pains with you to direct you in your way, that having a mind to your work as you seem to pretend, you may not mistake and wander away from your duty, but address yourself to that which you undertake and which is expected from you. You are to prove that there is a necessity of receiving the use of images in the worship of the Church, so that whoever does not admit them, is to be cast out of the communion thereof; and 2. that these images so received are to be worshipped and adored with religious veneration, if not with the very same worship that is due to the persons represented by them, yet with that which redounds to them; and that not only by the outward gesture of the body but the inward motions of the mind. And when you shall have proved that the doctrine and practice of your Church in this matter of making and worshipping images is not contrary to the Scripture, or was ever received or approved by the primitive Church for six hundred years, I will promise you setting aside all other considerations, immediately to become a Papist: for the present I see no cause so to do, and shall therefore return to consider what you here say for the further adorning of your pictures.

The first thing you reflect upon is my censure of that passage in your Fiat, that the sight of images in the church is apt to cast the minds of men on that meditation of the Apostle (Hebrews 12): "You are come to mount Sion, to the City of the living God, to the Heavenly Hierusalem, the Society of Angels, and Church of the first born written in heaven, to God the judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, to Jesus the Mediator of the new Covenant." These, I tell you, upon the sight of a house full of images may be the thoughts of a man distracted of his wits, not of any that are sober and wise. To which you reply, mad men it seems can tell what figures represent, sober and wise men cannot. But who told you that your images represent the things mentioned by the Apostle? for instance, God the judge of all, the spirits of just men, Angels, and the Church of the first born; or can any man unless he be greatly distempered in his imagination, fancy any such thing. The house of Micah (Judges 18) was notably furnished with images of all sorts. Judges 17: he had [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] a house full of Gods, or a chapel adorned with images, for there was in it [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] a carved image, and [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] a sacred ornament for it, and [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] a lesser portable image, and [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] a molten statue. Judges 18: would it not, think you, notwithstanding the gaiety of all this provision, have been a mad thought in the Danites if upon their entrance into this house, they had apprehended themselves to be come to the Communion of the Catholic Church, and therein to the invisible God, to Angels and Saints departed? The truth is, there is aliquid dementiae, a tincture of madness in all idolatry, from where the Scripture testifies that men are mad upon their idols, but yet we do not find that these Danites though resolved upon false worship, were so mad as to entertain such vain thoughts as you imagine the chapel full of images might have suggested to them. Or do you think Ezekiel had any such thoughts, when God showed him in vision the imagery of the house of Israel with all the deities portrayed on the wall, and the elders worshipping before them (Ezekiel 8)? God and the Prophet discover other thoughts in reference to them. Besides, Sir, the Holy Ghost tells us that a graven image is a teacher of lies (Habakkuk 2:18), and how likely it is that a man should learn any truth from that whose work it is only to teach lies, I do not as yet understand.

You proceed to another exception; the violation of an image, say you, redounds to the Prototype if it be rightly and duly represented, not else. To which you reply, and when then for example is Christ crucified rightly and duly represented? Are you one of those that can tell what figures represent or not? 1. You do not rightly report my words, though you might as easily have done it as set down those you have made use of. My words were, that the violation of an image redounds to the Prototype, provided it be an image rightly and duly destined to represent him, that is intended to be injured; which is so cleared by an instance there expressed, as turns your exception out of doors as altogether useless. For first, I require that the image be rightly and duly destined to the representation of the Prototype; that is, by him or by them who have power so to do, and by the express consent and will of him whose image it is, who otherwise is not concerned in it. Now nothing of all this can you affirm concerning your images. 2. I require an intention of doing injury or contumely to the person represented by the image, without which whatever is done to the image reflects not at all upon him; and so a man may break an image of a king which he finds formed against his will in some ugly shape to expose him to contempt and scorn, as I suppose out of loyalty to him, without the least violation of his honor, which is the very condition of your images and those that reject them. And this also may suffice to what you add about hanging of traitors in effigie, which is a particular instance of your general assertion that the violation of an image redounds to the Prototype; which we grant it does when the image is rightly designed to that purpose by them who have just authority so to do, and when there is an intention of casting contempt upon it; the first whereof is not found among your images, nor the latter among them who reject them.

Besides, if all that were granted you which you express, yet what you aim at would not ensue. For though it should be supposed that the violation of an image would redound to the injury of the Prototype upon a mere intention of reflecting upon him, without which it is a foolish conceit to apprehend any such thing, yet it does not from there follow that the honor done to an image redounds to him that is represented by it, provided that the intention of them that give the honor be so to do: for besides our intention in the worship of God, we have a rule to attend to, without the observation whereof the other will stand us in little stead. And if this might be admitted, the grossest idolatry that ever was in the world might easily be excused. That for instance of the Israelites setting up a golden calf, and worshipping it, must needs be esteemed excellent, seeing they thought to give honor to Jehovah thereby. When the things mentioned then are wanting, images may be dealt withal as false money, which his Majesty causes every day to be broken, though it have his own image and superscription upon it, because stamped without his warrant.

You proceed and add as my words, where the Psalmist complains of God's enemies breaking down his sculptures, he means not thereby any images or figures, but only wainscot or carved ceilings. Would you could find in your heart rightly to report my words. The reason is evident why you do not, namely because then you had not been able to make any pretence of a reply to them; but yet this ought not to have prevailed with you to persist in such unhandsome dealing. My words are, The Psalmist indeed complains that they broke down the [in non-Latin alphabet] or carved works in the walls and ceilings of the Temple (though the Greeks render [in non-Latin alphabet] her doors, the verb signifying principally to open) but that those apertiones or incisurae were not pictures and images for the people to adore and venerate, or appointed for their instruction you may learn. You see Sir, I grant that the word may denote carved works: and if so, I think they must be either in the walls or ceiling; that which only I deny was, that these [in non-Latin alphabet] or carved works were proposed to the people to be adored or venerated. This you should have confuted, or held your peace. But you take another course; having misreported my words to gain some countenance thereby to what you had to except against them, you add, Surely the Prophet wanted a word then to express himself, or translators to express the Prophet: If we must guess at his meaning without heeding his words, one might think it as probable that the house of God was adorned with sculptures of Cherubims and other angels to represent his true house that is above, as with the circles, &c. of wainscot. Sir, the Prophet wanted not a word rightly to express his meaning and intention; [in non-Latin alphabet] is originally aperire, to open, and solvere to loose, and because engravings are made by opening the matter engraved with incisions, it signifies also to engrave, as (2 Chronicles 3:7) [in non-Latin alphabet] he graved Cherubims, and from there is [in non-Latin alphabet] (Zechariah 3:9) engraving, or work engraving, the word here used by the Psalmist expressing the effect of what is affirmed (2 Chronicles 3:7) and elsewhere. And this is well enough expressed by sundry translators; and you speak very faintly when you talk of the guessing at the Psalmist's meaning about the Temple's being adorned with engraven Cherubims, as though you knew not certainly that it was so, or as though it were a thing at all questionable. Sir, the text is express for it, both in the Kings, Chronicles and Ezechiel; neither was it ever called in question; but withal the same places inform us that there was as many palm trees as Cherubims, and those attended with flowers and pomegranates; and the Cherubims in Ezechiel's vision had each one two faces, the one of a man, the other of a young lion, the one face looking towards one palm tree, the other towards another; all which we grant were used for ornament in that wonderful and magnificent structure; but so to imagine that they were proposed to the people to adore and venerate, is a little flowing, if not foaming of the madness we lately discoursed of. That Cherubims were not images, I shall show you by and by. And I desire to be informed of you, what palm tree and flowers, or angels with two faces, one of a man, another of a lion, you think there are in heaven, that you should suppose them represented by these below? You may easily discern how well you have evinced the conclusion manifested before, to expect some proof at your hands, by faintly intimating that the walls of the Temple were engraven with Cherubims, palm trees and flowers, and therefore doubtless he that will not worship images deserves to be anathematized.

You add nextly as my words, The eye may not have her species as well as the ear, because God has commanded the one, and not the other. You know full well that you do not express my words, nor meaning as you ought. But I shall now cease to expect better dealing from you, and make the best that I may of what you are pleased to set down. Speaking in general, I do not, nor did deny that the eye might have its use and the species of it to help and further our faith and devotion in the worship of God. It has so in the Sacraments by him instituted; but I tell you it can have no use to these ends in things which God has forbidden, as he has done the making of Images for religious adoration. But you say, Fiat Lux makes it appear that God commands both, and the nature of man requireth both, nor can I give any reason why I may not look upon him who was crucified, as well as hear him. Pray Sir talk not of Fiat Lux making it appear. The design of Fiat Lux is rather to hide then to make any thing appear; and you might have done well to direct us to that place in your Fiat, where you fancied that you had made it appear that God commands that use of Images in his worship which you plead for; and as for what the nature of man requireth we suppose God knows as well at least as the Pope, and is as careful to make suitable provision for its relief and help in the duties he calls us to the performance of. And it is an easy thing to give you a reason why you may not look on him that was crucified, that is with your bodily eyes, as well as hear him by the preaching of the word, and it is because you cannot. You yourself tell us, when you think it for your purpose, that Christ as to his human nature is now invisible, and that is it I think you intend. Now how you will look with your bodily eyes on that which to you and us is at present invisible, I cannot understand. I know that one of the great Fathers of your second Nicene faith, publicly affirmed in the Council with the approbation of his Associates, that Christ is so present with, or related to his Image, that he should speak of it and should say, this is Christ, should not err. But I know also he did it with as much wisdom as he whom the Prophet derides for carving a stock into the likeness of a man, and then saying to it, You are my God. So Sir you may not with your bodily eyes look on him that was crucified because you cannot; and as looking on the picture of him, which you mean, is nothing of that which we contend about: so I fear it is to you only a means of taking you from looking after his Person in a way of believing which he so earnestly calls us to.

Your next progress is to some words of mine about the end of preaching, which you set down: Nor is the sole end of preaching as Fiat Lux would have it, only to move the mind of hearers to corresponding affections; whereas indeed they are; he is mistaken if he think the sole end of preaching the Cross and death of Christ, is to work out such representations to the mind, as Oratory may affect for the moving of corresponding affections: which if you know not to differ very much from what you have expressed, I wish you would let these matters alone, and talk of what you understand. However, your reply to what you are pleased to express, is such a piece of ridiculous scurrility, as I shall not stain paper with a recital of. In sum, you deny there is any other end of preaching, and excuse yourself that you thought not of those other ends, which you suppose I might have in my heart, but yet conceal; and then instance in such a rabblement of foolish wicked fancies, as I wonder how your thoughts came to be conversant about. As to the thing itself I must tell you Sir, whether you are willing to hear it or no, that if you know no other end of preaching the Cross and death of Christ, but merely to work upon the minds of men, so as to stir up their affections, that you are a person better skilled in the Mass book then the Gospel, and much fitter to be employed in sacrificing according to the Order of that, then in preaching of the mystery and doctrine of this. Did never any man inform you, that one end of preaching the word was to regenerate the whole souls of men, and to beget them anew to God? That it was also to open their eyes, and to illuminate them with the saving knowledge of God in Christ, that it was to beget and increase faith in them; that it was to be a means of their growth in grace, and in the knowledge of God; that the word preached is profitable for reproof, correction, doctrine and instruction in righteousness; that it is appointed as the great means of working the souls of men into a likeness and conformity to the Lord Jesus, or the changing of them into his Image; that it is appointed for the refreshment of the weary, and consolation of the sorrowful, and making wise of the simple? Did you never hear that the word preached has its effect upon the understanding and will as well as upon the affections, and upon these consequentially only to its efficacy on them, if they are not deluded? Is growth in knowledge, faith, grace, holiness, conformity to Christ, communion with God, for which end the word is commanded to be preached, nothing at all with you? Is being made wise in the mystery of the love of God in Christ, to have an insight into, and some understanding of the unsearchable treasures of his grace, and by all this the building up of souls in their most holy faith, of no value with you? Are you a stranger to these things, and yet think yourself a meet person to persuade your countrymen to forsake the religion they have long professed, and to follow you they know not whither? Or do you know them, and yet dare to thrust in your scurrility to their exclusion? Plainly Sir, the most charitable judgment that I can make of this discourse of yours, is that it proceeds from ignorance of the most important truths and most necessary works of the Gospel.

You next proceed to your plea from the Cherubims set up by Moses in the Holy place over the Ark; and from there you will needs wrest an argument for your Images and the worship of them. Although your Vasquez is ashamed of it, and has cashiered it long ago, and that worthily, as not at all belonging to this matter: For 1. The Cherubims were not Images, to which you say, since the real Cherubims are not made of beaten Gold, those set up by Moses must be only figures; but it is of Images that we are speaking precisely, and not in general of figures; figures may include Types and Hieroglyphics and any representation of things. Images represent Persons, and such alone are those about which we treat. And if a Person be not presented by an Image, it is not his Image. Now I pray tell me what personal subsistences these Cherubims with their various wings and faces did represent? Do you believe that they give you the shape and likeness of Angels? It is true, John the Bishop of Thessalonica in your Synod of Nice with the approbation of the rest of his company, affirms that it was the opinion of the Catholic Church that Angels and Archangels were not altogether incorporeal and invisible, but to have a slender body, of air or fire (Act. 5). But are you of the same mind? Or do you not rather think that the Catholic Church was belied and abused by the Synod? And if they are absolutely incorporeal and invisible, how can an Image be made of them? Should a man look on the Cherubims as Images of Angels, would not the first thing they would teach him be a lie? namely that Angels are like to them, which is the first language of any Image whatever. The truth is, the Mosaical Cherubims were mere Hieroglyphics to represent the constant tender love and watchfulness of God over the Ark of his Covenant, and the people that kept it, and had nothing of the nature of Images in them. 2. I say, suppose of them what you please, yet they were not set up to be adored, as your Images are; To which you reply, It is not to my purpose or yours that they were not set up to be adored; for Images in Catholic Churches are not set up for any such purpose, nor do I anywhere say so. No man alive has any such thought, no Tradition, no Council has delivered it, no practice infers it. And do you think meet to talk at this rate? Have you no Tradition among you that you plead for the Adoration of Images? Has no Council among you determined it? Does not your practice speak it? Were you awake when you wrote these things? Did you never read your Tridentine Decree, or the Nicene Canons commended by them? Is not the adoration of Images asserted an hundred times expressly in it? Has no man alive such thoughts? Are not only Thomas and Bonaventure, but Bellarmine, Gregory de Valentia, Baronius, Suarez, Vasquez, Azorius, with all the rest of your great Champions now utterly defeated, and have not one man left to be of their judgement? I would be glad to hear more of this matter. Speak plainly, do you renounce all adoration and worship of Images? Is that the doctrine of your Church? Prove it so, and I shall publicly acknowledge myself to have been a long time in a very great mistake. But it was for this cause that I gave you a little image of the doctrine and practice of your Church in this matter, at the entrance of our discourse, foreseeing how you would prevaricate in our progress. Come Sir, if Image Worship be such a shameful thing that you dare not avow it, deal ingenuously and acknowledge the failings of your Church in this matter, and labor to bring her to amendment. If you think otherwise, and in truth yet like it well enough, deal like a man, and dare to defend it at least as well as you can, and more no [illegible] can look for at your hands. You mention somewhat of the different opinions of your Schoolmen in this matter, which you slight. But Sir, I tell you again, that you and all your Masters are agreed that Images are to be adored and venerated — that is, worshipped; and their disputes about that honor that rests absolutely on the Image, and that which passes on to the Prototype, with the kind of the one and the other, are such as neither themselves, nor any other do understand. You tell us indeed, All Catholic Councils and practice, declare such sacred figures to be expedient assistants to our thoughts in our divine meditations and prayers, and that is all you know of it. But if you intend Councils and practice truly Catholic or Primitive, you can give no instance of allowing so much to Images as here you ascribe to them; no not one Council can you produce to that purpose for some hundreds of years, but a constant current of Testimonies for the rejection of such pretended expediencies and assistances. The first beginning of their use arising from Heathens, as Eusebius declares (Lib. 7. cap. 18). But if you intend your Roman Catholic Councils and Practice, your assertion is as devoid of truth as any thing you can possibly utter. What kind of assistance in devotion these your sacred figures do yield, we shall anon consider.

It is added in the Animadversions that it was God who appointed these Cherubims to be made, and placed where they were never seen of the people, and that his special dispensation of a Law constitutes no general rule; so he commanded his people to spoil the Aegyptians, though he forbid all men to steal. This was said on supposition that they were Images or adored, both which I shewed to be false. And it is the answer given by Tertullian; when he was pleading against all making up of pictures which we do not. Now do you produce Gods special command for the makeing, use and veneration of your Images, and this contest will soon be at an end. But whereas God who commanded these Cherubims to be made, has severely interdicted the making of Images, as to any use in his worship to us, what conclusion you can hence draw I see not. To this you reply in a large discourse wherein are many things Atheological. I shall briefly pass through what you say. Thus then you begin, We must know, you as well as I, that God who forbids men to steal, did not then command to steal as you say he did, when he bad his People spoil the Aegyptians under the species of a loan. Malum omen — you stumble at the threshold. Did I say that God commanded men to steal? porrige frontem; the words of the Animadversions lay before you when you wrote this, and you could not but know that you wrote that which was not true. This immorality does not become any man of what Religion soever he be. Stealing denotes the pravity of taking that which is another mans. This God neither does nor can command; for the taking of that which formerly belonged to another, is not stealing if God command it; for the reason which your self have stumbled on, as we shall see afterwards. The Aegyptians were spoyled by Gods Command, but the People did not steal; for his Command who is the Soveraign Lord of all things the great possessor of Heaven and earth, dispenced with his Law of one mans taking that which before belonged to another as to that particular whereunto his Command extended, in reference whereunto stealing or the pravity of that act of alienation consists, and so it is in other Cases. It is murder for a Father to slay his Son. Neither can God command a man to murder his Son: and yet he commanded Abraham to slay his. To so little purpose is your following attempt to prove that the Hebrews did not steal, and that God did not command them to steal, which you fancied or rather feigned to be asserted in the Animadversions, that you might make a pretence of saying something; so that it had been much better to have passed over this whole matter with your wonted silence, which relieves you against the things which you despair of returning a reply to. You say, the Hebrews might have right to those few goods they took in satisfaction for their long oppression, and it may be their own allowance was not paid them. But this right whatever it may be pretended, was only ad rem, a general equity, which they had no warrant to put in execution by any particular instance: and therefore you add Secondly, Because it is a thing of danger that any servant should be allowed to right himself by putting his hand to his Masters Goods, though his Case of wrong be never so clear; therefore did the Command of God intervene to justifie their action. But why do you call this a thing of danger only? Is it not of more then danger, even expresly sinfull? Then is a thing morally dangerous when there may be sin in it, not when unavoidably there is; then indeed there is danger of punishment, or rather certainty of it without repentance; but we do not say then there is danger of sinning. It may be you do it to comply with your Casuists, who have determined that in some Cases it is lawful for a servant himself to make up his wrongs out of his Masters Goods, which caused your friends some trouble as you know in the Case of John de Alva. You proceed and insist upon the Command of God proceeding from his Soveraignty and Lordship over all, warranting the Hebrews to take the Aegyptians goods and so spoil them, and that rightly. But this say you, can no way be applyed to Images: nor could God command the Hebrews to make any Images, if he bad absolutely forbidden to have any at all made. Sir, this is not our Case, God forbad the Hebrews to make any images, so as to bow down to them, in a way of Religious Worship, and yet might command them to make Hieroglyphical representations of his care and watchfulness, and to set them up where they might not be worshipped. But let us suppose that you speak to the same point, and pertinently, let us see how you prove what you say: For this, say you, concerns not any affair between neighbor and neighbor, whereof the Supreme Lord has absolute dominion, but the service only and [illegible] due from man to his Maker, which God being absolutely good, and immutably true, cannot [illegible] dispense with. Nor does it stand with his nature and Deity to change, dispence, or vary the first table of his Law concerning himself, as he may the [illegible] which concerns neighbours, for want of that [illegible] ever himself, which he has over any creature [illegible] away its right, to preserve or destroy it, as it pleases; and therefore you conclude that [illegible] his people to set up no Images, [illegible] have commanded them to set up any; because [illegible] would imply a contradiction in himself. A very [illegible] theological discourse, which might become one of the Angelical or Seraphical Doctors of your Church! But who I pray told you that there was the same reason of all the Commands of the [illegible] Table? Vows and Oaths are a part of the worship of God [illegible] in the third Commandment yet [illegible] God can do, your Pope takes upon himself [illegible] dispense with them every day. He so dispensed with the Oath of Ladislaus King of Hungary made in his Peace with the Turks, to the extream danger of his whole Kingdom, the irreparable loss and almost ruine of all Christendom. So he dispensed with the Oath of Henry the Second of France, which ended in his expulsion out of Italy, his loss of the famous Battail at St. Quintins, and the danger of his whole Kingdom. The strict Observation of the Sabbath by the Jews was commanded to them in a Precept of the first Table, and was not a matter between neighbours, but belonged immediately to the worship of God himself: according to your Divinity, God could not dispense with them to do any labor that day: but our Lord Jesus Christ has taught us that by his Command the Priests were to labor on that day in killing the Sacrifice, by vertue of an after exception. And your Book of Macchabees will inform you that the whole people judged themselves dispensed withal in case of imminent danger. The whole fabrick of Mosaical worship was a thing that belonged immediately to God himself, and was not a matter between neighbours, which had its foundation in the second Commandment: and yet I suppose you will grant that God has altered it, changed it, and taken it away. So excellent is your Rule as to all the precepts of the first Table, which indeed holds only in the first Command. Things that naturally and necessarily belong to the dependance of the rational creature on God as the first Cause, last End, and Supreme Lord of all, are absolutely indispensable, which are in general all comprized as to their nature in the first precept, wherein we are commanded to receive him alone as our God, and consequently to yield him that obedience of faith, love, honor, which is due to him as God: but the outward modes and wayes of expressing and testifying that subjection and obedience which we owe to him, depending on his arbitrary institution, are changeable, dispensable and lyable to be varied at his pleasure, which they were at several seasons, before the last hand was put to the Revelation of his will by his Son. And then though God did absolutely forbid his people the making of images as to any use of them in his Worship and Service, he might by particular exception have made some himself; or appointed them to be made, and have designed them to what use he pleased: from where it would not follow in the least, that they who were to regulate their obedience by his command, and not by that instance of his own particular exception to his institution, might set up any other images for the same end and purpose, no more then they might set up other Altars for Sacrifice besides that appointed by him, when he had commanded that they should not do so. Supposing then that which is not true, and which you can give no color of proof to, namely that the Cherubims were Images properly so called, and set up by Gods command to be adored, yet they were no less still under the force of his prohibition against the making of Images, then if he had never appointed any to be made at all. It was no more free for them to do so, then it is for you now under the New Testament to make five Sacraments more of your own heads, because he has appointed two. So unhappy are you in the Confirmation of your own supposition, which yet as I have shewed you, is by no means to be granted. And this is the substance of your plea for this practice and usage of your Church, which whether it will justifie you in your open transgression of so many express Commands that lye against you in this matter, the day that shall discover all things will manifest.

You proceed to the vindication of another passage in your Fiat, from the Animadversions upon it, with as little success as the former you have attempted. Fiat Lux says, God forbad foreign images, such as Moloch, Dagon, and Astaroth, but he command his own (Sir, Moloch and Astaroth were not images properly so called, whatever may be said of Dagon; the one was the Sun, the other the host of Heaven, or the Moon and Stars) but the Animadversions say that God forbad any likeness of himself to be made; they do so, and what say you to the contrary! Why, you may know and consider, that the statues and graven images of the Heathen, towards whose land Israel then in the wilderness was journeying, were ever made by the Pagans to represent God and not any devils, although they were deluded in it. But 1. Your good friends will give you little thanks for this concession, whose strongest plea to vindicate themselves and you from idolatry in your image worship is, that the images of the Heathen were not made to represent God, but that an idol was really and absolutely nothing. 2. God did not forbid the people in particular the making images to Moloch, Dagon or Astaroth, but prohibits the worshipping of the idols themselves in any way; but he forbids the making of any images and similitudes of himself in the first place, and of all other things to worship them. But what of all this? Why then say you, there was good reason that the Hebrews who should be cautioned from such snares, should be forbidden to make to themselves any similitude or likeness of God. Well then they were so forbidden, this is that which the Animadversions affirmed before, and Fiat Lux denied, affirming that they were the ugly faces of Moloch that were forbidden. Moses say you, p. 294. forbad profane and foreign images, but he commanded his own; but here you grant that God forbad the making of any similitude or likeness of himself; the reason of it we shall not much dispute, while the thing is confessed; though I must inform you, that himself insists upon another, and not that which you suggest, which you will find if you will but peruse the places I formerly directed you to. But say you, what figure or similitude the true God had allowed his people, that let them hold and use until the fullness of time should come, when the figure of his substance, the splendor of his glory and only image of his nature should appear; and now since God has been pleased to show us his face, pray give Christians leave to keep and honor it. I presume you know not, that your discourse is sophistical and atheological, and I shall therefore give you a little light into your mistakes. 1. What do you mean by figure or similitude that the true God had allowed his people? Was it any figure or similitude of himself, not of Moloch which you were speaking of immediately before, and which your following words interpret your meaning of, where you affirm that in the fullness of time he has given us the image of himself? Have you not denied it in the words last mentioned? Have you no regard how you jumble contradictions together, so you may make a show of saying something? Do you intend any other likeness or similitude? Why then do you deal sophistically in using the same expression to denote diverse things? 2. It is atheological that you af[illegible] Christ to be the image of the nature of God. He is, and is said to be, the image of his father's person (Hebrews 1:2). And when he is said to be the image of the invisible God, the term God is to be taken [in non-Latin alphabet] for the Person of the Father, and not [in non-Latin alphabet] for the nature, or substance, or essence of God. 3. Christ is the essential image of the Father in his divine nature, in as much as he is partaker with him of all the same divine properties and excellencies, and morally in his whole Person, God and man as Mediator, in that the love, grace, will, and wisdom of the Father, are in him fully represented to us, and not in the outward lineaments of his human nature (Isaiah 52 and 53). And what is all this to your images that give us the shape and form of a man, and of what individual person neither you nor we know? 4. And is it not a fine business to talk of seeing the face of God, which shone forth in Christ, in a carved image or a painted figure? Is not this to confess plainly that your images are teachers of lies? 5. Your logic is like your divinity. Inartificial argument or testimony you use none in this place, and I desire you would draw your discourse into a syllogism. Christ is the brightness of the glory of God, God shows us his face in him, therefore we ought to make images of wood and stone, carved and painted, and set them up in churches to be adored, [in non-Latin alphabet]. And hereby you may also discern what is to be judged of your defence of what you had affirmed in your Fiat, namely that we had a command, that we should have images, and a command that we should not have images; which I never imagined that you would put upon a various [illegible]ection of the text, and thought it sufficient to manifest your failing, to intimate to you the express preciseness of the prohibition, with which your fancied command for images is wholly inconsistent. God has strictly forbidden us to make any image either of himself or of any other person or thing to adore or worship it, or to put it to any use purely religious. This is an everlasting rule of our obedience. His own making of Cherubims and placing them in the most holy place while the Judaical economy continued gives us no dispensation as to the obedience which we owe to that command and rule, whereby we must be judged at the last day.

Your last exception is layed against what I affirmed concerning the relation you fancy between the image and its prototype, whereby you would excuse the honor and worship which you give to it, which I said is a mere effect of your own imagination. To which you reply, that speaking of a formal representation or relation and not of the efficient cause of it, you cannot but wander at this illogical assertion. But sir, this your formal representation or relation which you fancy, must have an efficient cause, and has so; a real one, if it be real; an imaginary one if it be fictitious, and this I enquired after; and I think it is not illogical to affirm that the relation you pretend is fictitious because it has no cause but your own imagination on which alone it depends. A divine institution constituting such a relation you have none, nor does it ensue on the nature of the thing it self. For the carving of a stock into the likeness of a man, gives it no such relation to this or that individual man, as that which is done to the one should have any respect to the other. But you add; Is the picture made by the spectators imagination to represent this or that thing, or the imagination rather guided to it by the picture? By this rule of yours the image of Caesar, did not my imagination help it, would no more represent a man then a mouse. But you quite mistake the matter; the relation you fancy includes two things; first that this image represents not a man in general, but this or that individual man in particular, and that exclusively to all others; for instance; Simon Peter, and not Simon Magus, who was a man no less then he or any other man whatever. Now though herein the imagination may be assisted when it has any certain grounds of discerning a particular likeness in an image to one man when he was living more then to another, yet you in most of your images are destitute of any such assistance. You know not at all that your images represent any thing peculiar in the persons whereof you pretend them to be the images, which sufficiently appears by the varity that is in the images whereby you represent the same person, even Christ himself in several places. So that though every man in his right wits may conceive, that an image is the image of a man and not of a mouse, yet that it should be the image of this or that man, of Christ himself; or Peter, he has no ground to imagine, but what is suggested to him by his imagination, directed by the circumstances of its place and title. When Clodius had thrust Cicero into banishment to do him the greater spite, he demolished his house, and dedicated it as a devoted place to their gods, setting up in it the image of the goddess Libertas. The orator upon his return in his Oration ad Pontifices for the recovery of his house to overthrow this pretended dedication and devotion of it, pleads two things, first that the image pretended by Clodius to be the image of Libertas, was indeed the image of a famous or rather infamous whore that lived at Tanager; had this dedication passed, I wonder how this image could have any relation to Libertas, but by vertue of the imagination of its worshippers when in very deed it was the image of a Tangraean whore. And the same orator tells us of a famous painter who making the picture of Venus and her companions for their temples; still drew them by some strumpet or other that he kept company withall. And whether you have not been so imposed upon sometimes or no, I very much question. In which case nothing but your imagination can free you from the worship of a quean, when you aime your devotion another way. Again he pleads, that the dedication of that image was not regularly religious, nor according to that institution which they esteemed divine; from where no sacredness in it could ensue; and want of institution which may be so esteemed, is that also which we object against your dedication of images. For besides a relation to this or that individual person, which as I have shewed, the most of your images have not, but what in your fancy you give to them, which is natural or civil; you fancy also a religious relation, a sacred conjuction between the image and prototype, so that the worship yielded to the one should redound to the other in a religious way. And this, I say, is also the product of your own fancy. If it be not, I pray, will you assign some other cause of it: for to tell you the truth, excluding divine institution which you have not, other I can think or none. And if you could pretend divine institution constituting a sacred relation, between images and their prototypes, yet it would not presently follow, that they were to be worshipped, no not supposing the prototypes themselves to be the proper objects of religious adoration, which as to the most of them you know we deny, unless you have also a command to warrant you. For there is [illegible] institution of God himself a sacramental [illegible] between the water in Baptism and the [illegible]; and yet I do not know that you plead that the water is to be worshipped. And thus is it as to your wooden cross; you put two sticks a cross and worship them, you take them asunder and burn them; it is the very instance of your Nicene Council, for so they repeat the words of Leontius and approve them, Act. 4. [illegible]; while the two sticks of the cross are put together or compacted, I adore that figure for Christ's sake who suffered thereon; but when they are separated, I cast them away and burn them; a pretty course, whereby a man may keep a sacred fire, and worship all his wood pile before he burns it. And all this you are beholding to your imagination for.

We have done with your exceptions and pleas, and I dare leave it to the conscience and judgment of any man fearing God, and not captivated under the power of prejudices and a vain conversation received by tradition from his fathers, whether your pretences are sufficient to warrant us to break in upon those many and severe interdictions of God, lying expressly in the letter against this usage and practice, and so apprehended in their intention by the whole primitive Church. In the command itself, we are forbidden to make to ourselves, that is in reference to the worship of God treated of in that precept, not only [in non-Latin alphabet] sculptile a graven image, but also [in non-Latin alphabet] any kind of likeness of anything in heaven, earth or sea, so as that a man should [in non-Latin alphabet] bow down, adore, or venerate them, or [in non-Latin alphabet] serve them with any sacred veneration. And the natural equity of this precept was understood by the wisest of the heathen. For not only does Tacitus witness that the ancient Germans had no images of their gods, but it is known that Numa Pompilius the Roman Solon admitted not the use of them. Seneca decries them (Epistle 33), and Macrobius denies that antiquity made any image to the most high God. What Silius, Persius and Statius observed to the same purpose, I have showed elsewhere. And from this principle Paul pleads with the Athenians that the [in non-Latin alphabet] was not to be represented with images of gold and silver, or carved stones. Neither does God leave us under this interdiction as proceeding from his sovereign authority, but frequently also shows the reasonableness of his will, by asserting the incomprehensibility of his nature, and minding us that in the great manifestation of his glory to the people, they saw no manner of likeness or similitude, which should have been showed to them had he been by any sensible means or matter to be represented. And yet, Sir, all this will not deter you from making images and various pictures of God himself and the blessed Trinity. Indeed you say you do not do it to represent the essence and nature of the invisible God, but only some divine manifestations of his excellency or presence, so that those images are only metaphorical. But you venture too boldly on the commands of God with your cobweb distinctions; nor do you difference yourselves hereby from the more sober heathen, who openly professed that in their many names and images of God they had no design to teach a multiplication of the divine essence, but only to represent the various properties and excellencies of that one Deity which they adored, as Lactantius will inform you. Neither I fear do you consider aright, or sufficiently esteem the scandal that by this means you cast before the Jews and Turks, who abhor the worship of God among you, upon the account of your images; and Christians also kept from participating in their Sacra by this means. Lampridius tells us in the life of Alexander Severus, that Hadrian the Emperor erected temples in sundry cities without images in them, until he was forbidden by the soothsayers, affirming that this was the only way to make all men become Christians, as though the weight of the controversy between Christians and pagans had turned on this hinge, whether God were to be worshipped in images or no. As for other images and pictures which may as to a civil use be made, which you set up in your churches to be adored and venerated, is not your doctrine and practice a mere [in non-Latin alphabet], a will worship condemned by the Apostle (Colossians 2:23)? A worship destitute of institution, promise, command or any ground of acceptance with God. A worship wherein you do what is right in your own eyes like the people in the wilderness, and not that only which is commanded you, which God complains of and reproves (Deuteronomy 12:8, 23). And besides you are conversant in a will worship of a most dangerous importance, wherein you ascribe the honor that is due to God alone, to that which by nature is not God, which is downright idolatry. I know how you turn and wind yourselves into various forms and multiply unintelligible distinctions, to extricate yourselves out of the snare that you wilfully cast yourselves into. But you all agree well enough in this, if your Nicene and Trent Councils, your Baronius, Vasquez, Suarez, and other great masters of your Sacra may be believed, that they are to be adored and worshipped, that is with adoration religious, which whatever you may talk of its modes, or distinguish about its kind, is to give the honor due to God alone to [illegible] and stones. And the best security you have to free you from the horrible guilt of idolatry lies in the pretended conjunction and religious relation that is between the image and its prototype, which is plainly imaginary and fictitious. And, now Sir, I hope I shall obtain your excuse for having drawn forth this discourse to a length beyond my intention, yourself having given me the occasion so to do, by pretending that you would upon this head of images, come up close to me, which caused me to give you a little taste of what entertainment you are to expect, if you shall think meet to continue in the same resolution.