Answer to Book by Romish Priests, Doctrine 49
XLIX. That it is not lawful to reverence Images, nor to give any honour to inſenſible things.
Anſwer.
NOW we are come indeed to the buſineſs: but they ſeem afraid to touch it. For, firſt, inſtead of ſaying, it is not lawful to worſhip Images (as it was before, when Biſhop Montague anſwered this Book) now they dwindle it into reverence of them. And then, they fallaciouſly tack to this a Propoſition of another nature, that no honour is to be given to inſenſible things. Which is a new Calumny; for we do upon ſome occaſions give honour or reſpect (tho no Worſhip, nor Adoration) to things that have no ſenſe in them.
Therefore he might have kept to himſelf his firſt Scripture,Exod. III. 5. which is brought to prove this; not the worſhipping of any Creature. For putting off the ſhooes was a reſpect paid to earthly Princes in thoſe Countries, when they came into their preſence.
Pſ. XCIX. 5.In the next place XCIX. Pſal. 5. inſtead of our Tranſlation, Worſhip at his footſtool (which he promiſed to ſtick unto) he gives us their own, Adore the footſtool of his feet; expreſly contrary to the Original, and to the moſt ancient Tranſlations; particularly the Chaldee Paraphraſe, which runs thus; adore, or worſhip in the Houſe of his Sanctuary, for he is holy. Which is ſo plain and literal an Interpretation, that Janſenius and Lorinus himſelf follow it. And they, among the Ancients, who follow the Vulgar Tranſlation, thought it ſo horrible a thing to worſhip his Footſtool) thereby underdanding the Earth, which is called God's footſtep, that they expound theſe words of Chriſt. Hear St. Auſtin upon the place. I am afraid to worſhip the Earth, leſt he that made Heaven and Earth condemn me; (obſerve that) and yet I am afraid not to worſhip the Footſtool of my Lord, becauſe the Pſalmiſt ſaith, Worſhip the Footſtool of his Feet. What therefore ſhall I do? In this doubt, I turn my ſelf to Chriſt, whom here I ſeek, and find; how without impiety the Earth may be worſhipped; without Impiety may be worſhipped the Footſtool of his Feet; For he took Earth from the Earth, Fleſh being of the Earth: and he took Fleſh of the Fleſh of Mary. He muſt have a brow of braſs, if he can read this, and not be put out of countenance. But if they had any ſhame left, they would not draw in St. Hierom to conuntenance this Impiety; Whom this man quotes again (though he tells us not in what Epiſtle to Marcella we may find it) to prove that the Ark was worſhipped in regard of the Images that were ſet upon it, that is, the Cherubims. A foul Forgery! For he only ſaith, the Tabernacle was venerated; that is, had in honourable regard, becauſe the Cherubims were there. Veneration is one thing, and Religious Worſhip is another: And his meaning is no more than this, that they reverenced the Sanctuary (as God commanded Moſes) becauſe of a Divine preſence there. It was the more impudent to alledg him, becauſe he is the Father who ſaith*L. W. in Ezek. c. 16., We have one Huband, and we worſhip one Image: which is the Image of the Inviſible, Omnipotent God; i. e. Chriſt.
What he intends by alledging, II. Philip. 10. for a proof that Images are to be worſhipped, I cannot imagine: unleſs he be ſo ſenſleſs, as to take the Name of a thing, for an Image of it. And he could not but know alſo, that when we bow at the Name of Jeſus, we worſhip our Lord Chriſt.
His long Diſcourſe of the brazen Serpent, mentioned XXI.Numb. XXI. 8. Numb. 8. is as impertinent. For there is no proof that it was an Image, nor the leaſt ſignification that it was ſet up to be worſhipped. If it were, why did Hezekiah break it in pieces; for that very reaſon, becauſe, in proceſs of time, People burnt incenſe to it? He ought to have known alſo, That Vaſquez (as I ſhew'd before) together with Azorius, both learned Jeſuits, with a great many other of the beſt Writers of his own Church, acknowledge that no Image among the Jews was ſet up for worſhip. And Azorius expreſly confutes his moſt learned Dr. Saunders, for abuſing the Teſtimony of ſome Fathers to prove the contrary. As this man doth thoſe whom he hath named, particularly their Pope Gregory the Great: who is known to all the World to have been againſt the Worſhip of Images; though he earneſtly contended to have them in Churches. But I refer the Reader to Biſhop Montague for ſatisfaction about his Fathers (ſome of which are forged, others ſay nothing to the purpoſe, and John Damaſcen was no Father, but a ſuperſtitious Monk) becauſe, contrary to his cuſtome, he takes notice of ſome of our Objections againſt Image-worſhip, and endeavours to anſwer them; which may ſeem to require conſideration, though I think the moſt ordinary Reader might be left to grapple with him.
His Anſwer to the firſt Objection, of Hezekiah's breaking the brazen Serpent, ſeeing it the cauſe of Idolatry, if it have any ſenſe in it, is an audacious reflection upon that good King; nay, upon the Holy Ghoſt, who commends him for what he did: Whereas this man going about to prove, that the abuſe of a good thing, ought not to take away the uſe of it, doth as good as ſay, Hezekiah ſhould not have broken it, but left it as a Monument of God's Mercy to them, without deſtroying it. What is this but cenſuring him, inſtead of anſwering us?
His Anſwer to the next, is an impudent denial of their Principles, and of their Practice. For their greateſt Writers ſay, it is the conſtant Opinion of Divines, that the Image is to be worſhipped with the ſame worſhip wherewith that is worſhipped of which it is the Image. So Azorius.
The third is no Anſwer to what we charge upon them, but a falſe Charge upon us; Who do not fall down before the Sacrament, and worſhip it as an Image of Chriſt; but worſhip Chriſt himſelf, when we receive it upon our Knees.
The Fourth is a freſh piece of Impudence; in denying Images to be ſet up in Churches with a ſpecial intent, that People ſhould worſhip or adore them: and in affirming, That the worſhip is given them, as it were, by a conſequence; and rather, becauſe it may be lawfully given, than becauſe it is principally ſought to be given. For their great Cardinal Bellarmin *L. 2. de Imag. c. 21, 22., to name no other, expreſly ſaith, That the Images of Chriſt, and of the Saints, are honoured, not only by accident, and improperly, but per ſe, and properly: ſo that they terminate the Veneration, as they are conſidered in themſelves; and not only as they repreſent their Exemplar. And their Opinion ſavours of Hereſie in that Church, who ſay that they are not ſet up to be worſhipped. Of which this man, I believe, was ſenſible, when he tells us, They are partly ſet up in Churches, to ſtir up our minds to follow the Example of thoſe holy men, whoſe Images we behold. Which ſuppoſes this not the whole end for which they are ſet up; but that they are partly intended for another purpoſe. What that is, he durſt not confeſs; for fear he ſhould confute himſelf: For he knew that the ſtirring up of Peoples minds to follow the Saints, is but a ſmall part of the reaſon for which Images are ſet up in Churches: the great end is, that they may be worſhipped.
His diſtinction between an Idol and an Image, is as vain as all the reſt (as our Authors have demonſtrated a thouſand times) and that they do not give Latria to Images, is another egregious untruth: for they expreſly ſay in the Ceremoniale, that Latria is due to the Croſs: for which reaſon it is ordered to take place of the Imperial Sword, when they are both carried together.
Neither he, nor any any one elſe (whatſoever he vapours) dare break in pieces, or tear a Crucifix, or Picture, ſolemnly conſecrated to be worſhipped: not with an inferior ſort of Worſhip (as he pretends); for that, the greateſt Men in his Church acknowledge is down-right Idolatry. And therefore maintain, that the Image, and the Perſon repreſented by it, are worſhipped as one Obect, with the ſame act of worſhip.
What the Council of Trent ſaith, hath been conſidered by a number of our Writers, who have ſhown, that the Prayers wherewith Images are conſecrated, the Pilgrimages that are made to them, the Prayers to the Wood of the Croſs, do ſuppoſe they expect vertue, yea very great benefit from them: and that, notwithſtanding all their diſtinctions, the worſhip of them is Idolatry.
Thus much I have thought good to add in this place (that I may not be leſs careful than he) for the preſervation of our People from being deceived by thoſe who mince this matter of Image-worſhip. Concerning which, I may truly ſay, as Dr. Jackson hath done, that the Primitive Church abandon'd it, as the Liturgy of Hell.