A DISCOURSE OF THE Use of Images: In Relation to the Church of England AND THE Church of Rome. In Vindication of NUBES TESTIUM. Against a Pamphlet Entitled, The Antiquity of the Protestant Religion concerning Images, directed against some Leaves of that Collection.  
Published with Allowance.  
LONDON, Printed by Henry Hills, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty, for His Household and Chapel. 1687.   

A Discourse of the Use of Images: In relation to the Church of England and the Church of Rome. In Vindication of NUBES TESTIUM.  
THE Factious and Unchristian Temper of our Age has so unhappily spread itself through all Ranks of Men, that even those, whose business ought to be the Advancement of Piety, have not escaped it's malignant Influence. And this they evidence too clearly to the world, whilst They show themselves so industrious in multiplying the number of many needless Contentions in the Church, instead of endeavouring to lessen and abate them. This is the Misfortune of him, who undertakes to assert the Antiquity of the Protestant Religion concerning Images, in Answer to a Dozen Leaves of Nubes Testium: Who because he is a Professed and Virulent Enemy to Catholics, seems resolved to contradict and Ridicule, in a strain of Drollery more becoming the Stage than his Coat, every thing they Believe and Teach, tho' it be the very Doctrine of his own Church. And like a Blind Combatant strikes at all before him, without distinction of Friend and Enemy, with a Have at all. At this Game plays this Undertaker; whose only care being to write an Answer in FULL, Answers, and Condemns even those Practices, as are allowed and approved by his own Church; and in this new Method of Controversy spends the greatest part of his Twelve-penny Pamphlet: So that tho' he pretends to be a Son of the Church of England, yet whosoever considers, how often he strikes that Church in the Face, must needs question the Legitimation, and necessarily conclude, that 'tis Uncertain What Church he is of, whilst the only thing Certain is, That he is No Papist. This whole matter, as to his needless multiplying of Controversies, and opposing the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of England, as well as that of the Church of Rome, I'll show briefly in declaring, what the Church of Rome and England teach concerning,  

1. The Historical Use of Sacred Images.  
2. The Commemorative Use of Images.  
3. The Respect and Honour due to Images.   
In all which if it be made appear that the Two Churches agree, there will need but little more, to prove This Answerer a Trisler, whilst he so laboriously sets himself against both; and at the end of all, says nothing to the purpose.  
1. As to the Historical Use of Images, 'tis the Professed Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome, to have the Pictures and Images of Holy Things and Passages both in Houses and Churches, for the instruction of the Ignorant in the knowledge of the History of both the Old and New Testament; that so they may be acquainted with those Sacred Persons of Patriarches, Prophets and Apostles, and be informed of the Wonderful Works wrought by God in Man's Creation and Redemption. This appears in the Council of Trent Sess. 25 and in the Catechism ad Parochos part. 3. the Invoc. Sanc. par. 40. Both which agree, that Holy Pictures and Images are made, to inform the People of the History of Holy Writ, and that for this end they are set up in Churches and other Places.  
This same Historical Use of Holy Images is conform likewise to the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of England, as is evident in Mr. Montagu's Appeal to Caesar, who declaring the Church of England's Own, Proper, True and Ancient Tenets, (Ep. Ded. to the King) such as be without any doubt or question, Legitimate and Genuine, such as she will both acknowledge and maintain for her own, in this Book Authorised and Published by Express order of King James and Charles l. and approved as containing nothing in it, but what was agreeable to the Doctrine and Discipline established in the Church of England (Ib.) says expressly, c. 20. that Images were improved unto an Historical Use in St. Gregory 's time, and then adds; Had the Church of Rome gone no farther in Practice or Precept, than that which St. Gregory recommends, our Church (says he) I suppose (for so our Doctrine is) would not blame them, nor have departed from them about that Point. And again chap. 23. Doth the English Church condemn the Historical or Civil use of Images? It does not (says he) in Practice; all the World knows that; nor yet in Precept or Doctrine, that I know. And at the end of the same Chapter, he says, Images may be had and made— ut Ornatui sint, ut Memoriae, ut Historiae; For Ornament, for Commemoration, and for History; and that they may be made for such Ends, No Law of God forbiddeth, says our Gamaliel, pa. 203. ad Apol. Bel. From whose words, in a Book so Authentic, and approved by Two Kings, Heads of the Church, 'tis beyond question, that the Historical Use of Images is agreeable to the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of England. And this does most Evidently appear to any, that will but put his head into any Church of this Communion, where presently Moses, and Aaron show themselves to the Beholder, and let him know the concern they had in Those Commandments, which they there guard betwixt them. This may be seen with great advantage in the Church at the Savoy, where besides these Two Saints of the Jewish Law, the Four Evangelists have their place in full proportion between the side Windows, with St. Peter, and St. Stephen, and the Twelve Apostles in twelve Niches on the Front of the Gallery. But above all, the New Church in St. James' in the Fields commends this Practice in a Rare Piece of Workmanship, where the hand of the Artist has set forth to the Life upon the Font, the History of Original Sin, and its Cure in the Water of Baptism. Adam and Eve stand beneath, Confessing the guilt of that Sin, for which Infants are brought thither to be cleansed. Round the Basin is seen Christ under the hand of the Baptist in Jordan, authorising the Institution of that Salutary Laver: And over it is an Angel, as it were descending to move the Waters, and to signify that the efficacy of that Sacrament is from above. Then if you turn towards the Altar, in one Figure is represented the Institution of the Blessed Sacrament at the Last Supper: The very same which is over the Altar at his Majesty's Chapel at Whitehal, and for the very same intent, viz. A Pelican feeding her Young ones with her Blood; to signify what Christ gives to the Faithful, his Children, in the Sacrament, that he feeds them with his Blood. Much more may be seen in Cathedral and Collegiate Churches of this kind, not only in relation to the Old, but New Testament, even the Crucifixion of our Saviour, but especially in the New Common-Prayer-Books, interleaved with Pictures.  
2ly. As to the Commemorative Use of Images, 'tis received and approved in the Church of Rome, as 'tis explicated in the Council of Trent above cited, where 'tis said; That the Use of Holy Images is Beneficial to the People, because by them they are put in mind of the Benefits and Blessings received from Christ; and by seeing the Wonderful Miracles wrought by the Power of God, and the Exemplary Lives of the Saints, they are excited to give God Thanks for such Favours, to love him, and compose their Lives according to the Exemple of such Holy Men. The same is declared in the Catechism ad Parochos, ut sup. where the Parish Priest is directed to inform the People; That Holy Images are placed in Churches, to put them in mind of the Divine Mysteries and Blessings, that so they may be more Zealous and Attentive in the Love and Service of so Good a God. And that by beholding the Representations of the Saints, they may be admonished, to conform their Lives to such Examples. Thus teaches the Church of Rome.  
The Church of England likewise agrees with her in the same Doctrine and Practice; allowing of Images, as helps to Piety, and for the affecting the minds of the Beholders with Pious Cogitations, and encouraging them to a Virtuous and Exemplary Life. This is most apparent in the Injunctions given by King Edward VI to his Clergy and Ministers, wherein they are ordered to Instruct the People in their Circuits, that Images serve for Remembrance, whereby Men may be admonished of the holy Lives and Conversation of them that the said Images Represent. Which is the very Doctrine now mentioned in the Council of Trent and Catechism ad Parochos. This Mr. Montagu explicates more at large, in his Book called A New Gag, etc. where treating of Images, he says to the Papists: Images have these uses assigned by your Schools— The Instruction of the Ignorant, the Refreshing of History, and Exciting Devotion: You and WE also give unto them these. And a little after, The Pictures of Christ, the Blessed Virgin, and Saints may be made, and had in Houses, set up in Churches.— The Protestants do it, and use them for Helps of Piety. In his Appeal to Caesar likewise he thus delivers the Sense of the Church of England in this affair, c. 21. Our strictest Writers, says he, do not condemn or censure St. Gregory for putting upon them (Images) that Historical use of suggesting unto, moving or affecting the mind even in Pious and Religious Affections: For Instance, in Remembering more feelingly, and so being empassioned more effectually, with the Death, Bloodshed and Bitter Passion of our Saviour, when we see that Story fully and lively Represented unto us in Colors, or Work by a Skilful hand. And I know not the Man that is made of human Mould, but when he readeth on this (Painted) Man's Sin, God's Love, Christ's endeared Charity, in undergoing these unknown Sufferings for our sake. Thus this Eminent Author most feelingly explicates the Pious use of Holy Images, as proper for the suggesting Good Thoughts, and inflaming the Soul with most Christian Affections, in order to the Love and Service of God.  
In this the Reader may behold, how little Difference, or rather how great an Agreement there is between the Legitimate and genuine Doctrine of the Church of England, and the Church of Rome, as to these two first Points mentioned, viz. The Historical and Commemorative Use of Sacred Images. Now when a Member of the Church of Rome has endeavoured to show, that this Doctrine as to the Historical and Commemorative Use of Holy Images is agreeable to the Ancient Church, as is done in Nubes Testium; who could ever expect, that any Member of the Church of England, much less a Divine, should appear, bidding Defiance to such Doctrine, with endeavours to show the Practice of it to be Heathenish, Heretical, and but a Popish Invention? Could a Man think, that any Church of England Divine would take so much pains to abuse and Ridicule his own Church? Certainly he must be either very Ignorant of what his own Church teaches; or very blindly Malicious against the Church of Rome, that to expose her, should not care what Mischief he did his own Mother Church. But thus it happens sometimes, when Men are guided by Passion instead of Truth and Reason; 'tis impossible to avoid these Absurdities, when such Bitter Spirits take Pen in hand, who look no further in Answering, than to Contradict their Adversary, right or wrong. And how far this Answerer has done this, 'twill be not amiss in this Place to consider.  
1st. Then he pretends to show, pa. 20. That the first making of Pictures among Christians proceeded partly from the Example of some HERETICS. This Bolt he shoots against the Papists: But will not any Reader presently reflect, that if Pictures in Churches, be not a Christian Institution, but the Corruption of Heretics; that the Church of England, for all the Pictures they set up in their Churches, follow not Christ and his Apostles, as they pretend, but the Invention of Heretics? And what Credit is this to his Church?  
2ly. He asserts ib. that the making Pictures among Christians had its Origin principally from the Fond Inclinations of those, who being Converted from Heathenism to Christianity, retained still an old relish and love of those Superstitious▪ Practices, to which they had been accustomed so long. Is not this to let the Person of Quality, to whom he writes, know; that the Church of England, in using and allowing Sacred Pictures of Christ, his Apostles, etc. (as is shown above) in Houses and Churches, follows not only an Heretical Abuse, but likewise the Superstitious Practices of Heathens?  
3ly. He says, that there was no such thing, pa. 15. as the Use of Images in the Primitive Ages. Which is to inform his Reader, that the Church of England, as to this Point of Images, is fallen from the Christianity of the Primitive Times; and that she stands in need of a Reformation.  
4ly. He shows pa. 22. that the having Pictures in Churches, is contrary to an Express Canon of the Council of Eliberis, held An. 305. by the Fathers of the Primitive Church. In which he condemns his own Church for contradicting the Positive Decrees of so Ancient a Council.  
5ly. From the Example of an Ancient Bishop renting a Veil or Hanging, whereon was the Image of Christ, he declares, pa. 25. in the words of the Bishop, such Pictures to be contrary to the Authority of the Scriptures. Which is plainly to tell the World, that the Use of Hangings, such as have Christ, or his Saints Represented on them, as may be seen in many Houses, in Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, are all contrary to the Word of God.  
These are some of the Severe Reflections he makes upon his own Church, while he's blindly knocking down Popery. Who could desire a better conditioned Antagonist than this, who is so Good-natured, as never to strike at his Adversary, but he gives himself a Blow over the Face at the same time? Has not he fairly defended his own Church, while he thus exposes her under the Gild of being Heathenish, Heretical, going contrary to the Primitive Church, to Councils and Scriptures, which is the Blackest of that Dirt, he has done his best to cast upon the Church of Rome? Hitherto the Reader has seen the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and of England, as far as concerns the Two First Points, viz. the Historical and Commemorative Use of Holy Images; and how this Worthy Answerer, with some wrested and misapplyed Passages of Antiquity, strikes most rashly at Both Churches; not caring, so he can but overthrow the Church of Rome, what other Church, tho' his own, falls with her. Now we will consider the Third Point, which is of the Honour and Respect due to these Images of Christ, etc. And as to this,  
The Church of Rome teaches, that the Images of Christ, etc. aught to be kept, especially in Churches, and DUE Honour and Veneration given them: Not for that any Divinity or Virtue is believed to be in them, for which they are to be Worshipped; or that any thing is to be Asked of them, or any Confidence to be placed in them, as was done by the Heathens; but because the Honour shown to them is referred to the Prototypes, or Things Represented by them: So that by the Images we Kiss, and before which we Kneel, we Adore Christ and Reverence his Saints, whom the said Images Represent. So the Council of Trent delivers this Doctrine, Sess. 25. The like is shown in the Catechism ad Parochos, ubi sup. And the whole meaning of it is nothing more, than what was given at large by Leontius Bishop of Cyprus, who flourished An. 620. that is, above a Thousand and threescore years ago; who thus makes his Apology for the Christians against the Jews, who charged them with the breach of the second Commandment, in giving honour to Images. The Pictures and Images, says he, of the Saints are not adored amongst us, like Gods. For if I Worshipped the Wood of an Image, as God, I might as well do the like to any other Wood: If I honoured the Wood as God, I would never throw it into the fire, when the Image is once disfigured.— As therefore he that has received a Commission from his Prince, and kisses the Seal, does not respect the Wax, the Paper or the Lead, but gives the Honour to the King; so we Christians, when we show Respect to the Figure of the Cross, do not honour the Nature of the Wood, but the Sign, the Pledge, the Remembrance of Christ; through this beholding him, who was Crucified on it, we respect and Adore him. And as Children, full of a dear Affection to their Father, who is Absent from them, do kiss with Tears, and with all Tenderness embrace his Stick, his Chair, his Coat, which they see at home; and yet do not adore these things, but express their Desire and Honour they have for their Father: Just so do all we Faithful honour the Cross, as Christ's Staff; the most Holy Sepulchre, as his Chair and Couch, the Manger and Bethleem as his House, etc. Not that we honour the Place, the House, the Country, the City or the Stones, but Him that was Conversant amongst them, who appeared in our Flesh, and delivered us from Error, Christ our Lord; and for Christ we honour those Things, which belong to him, describing his Passion in our Churches, in our Houses, in the Streets, in Images, upon our Linen, in our Chambers, upon our clothes, and upon every Place, to the end that having these continually before our Eyes, we may be put in mind, and not like thee (O Jew) forget our Lord and God. As you therefore expressing a veneration for the Book of the Law, do not Honour the Paper or Ink of which 'tis composed, but the Word of God contained in it: So I, showing Reverence to the Image of Christ, do not Adore (no, God forbid) the Wood or the Colours; but having an Inanimate Representation of Christ, by this seem to be possessed of, and to Worship Christ himself. As Jacob having received the party-colored and Bloody Coat of his Son Joseph, kissed it, full of Tears, and put it to his Eyes; not doing this for any Love or Honour he had for the Coat; but by this seeming to kiss Joseph, and hold him in his Arms: So all Christians, holding or kissing any Image of Christ, of his Apostles or Martyrs, do the like to Christ himself, or his Martyrs, in the affection of their Souls. By all which 'tis evident, that all the Honour and Veneration paid by Catholics to any Picture or Image of Christ or his Martyrs, is only to express the Love and Honour they have for Christ and his Martyrs; and that in thus doing, they no more commit Idolatry, or make Gods of those Pictures, than that Woman is disloyal to her Husband, who in affection to him, respects and kisses his Picture; than that Subject is a Traitor to his Prince, who Honours his Portraiture; or than all those, who pay a Reverence to the Chair of State, for the Relation it has to the King, make a King of the Chair, in so doing. This then is the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome.  
The Church of England seems to concur with the Church of Rome in all this Point. This may be gathered partly out of the Ecclesiastical Canons agreed to An. 1603. in the First year of King James I. where Can. 30. 'tis said, That the Holy Ghost did so Honour by the mouths of the Apostles, the very NAME of the Cross, that it did not only comprehend even Christ Crucified under that Name, but likewise the efficacy of Christ's Death and Passion, etc. In which words this Church acknowledges, the Giving Honour to the NAME of the Cross to have been the Practice of the Apostles, as they were inspired by the Holy Ghost. And that the Name of the Cross, was not only to put them in mind of the Person, whom they were to Worship (as a Modern Doctor says of the Name of Jesus,) but that the Holy Ghost did by the Apostles, Honour the very NAME itself. Spiritus S. per Apostolorum ora, ipsum Crucis Nomen usque adeo honoravit. And in honouring that Name, did honour Christ Crucified; Christum ipsum Crucifixum sub eodem comprehenderet. Which is the very Practice and Sense of Catholics, both as to the Name of the Cross, of Jesus, and of Pictures; Names or Words being Pictures to the Ear, as Pictures are Words to the Eye.  
But it comes nearer our Case, what is added in the same Canone 2ᵒ. Honour ac Dignitas Crucis Nomini acquisita, etiam & SIGNO Crucis, vel ipsa Apostolorum aetate (neque enim contrarium ostendi potest) existimationem peperit Honorificam. The Honour and Esteem shown to the NAME of the CROSS, did produce even in the Age of the Apostles, an honourable Esteem likewise for the SIGN of the Cross; neither can any thing contrary to this be proved. What can be plainer, than that according to this Canon, 'tis the Sense of the Church of England, that the Primitive Christians were taught by the Apostles, not only to Honour the Name of the Cross, but likewise the SIGN of the Cross? And certainly, if according to this Church, the Apostles taught their Followers, to honour in their Hearts and Souls the Sign of the Cross, it can neither be contrary to the Apostles, nor this Church, to do so now, and to express this Honour outwardly, which they are thus taught to conceive inwardly, and entertain in their hearts. 'Tis an Absurdity sure too great, to fall upon the Church of England, thus absolutely to approve the Affection of Honour and Esteem towards the Sign of the Cross in Christians Hearts, as both a Christian Duty and an Apostolical Doctrine; and then afterwards, to condemn the same Honour and Affection of the Soul, as Idolatry and Superstition, when 'tis expressed Outwardly, either in Words or Gesture: For how is it possible, that what is Apostolical in the Heart, should, by being expressed outwardly, become Idolatrous?  
This Doctrine is delivered more expressly by Mr. Montague, who in his Book called a New Gag, thus declares the Express Tenet of Catholics and of his own Church, p. 318. You say the Pictures of Christ, the Blessed Virgin and Saints, must not have Latria; So We. You give them Dulia; I quarrel not the Term, tho' I could. There is a Respect due unto, and Honour given Relatively to them. If this you call Dulia, We give it too. Let Practice and Doctrine go together, We agree. Nay he shows farther, 'tis impossible to keep or set up the Pictures of Christ or his Saints, without having a REVERENCE and HONOUR for them, in due kind. Hear him in his own words, in his Appeal to Caesar, c. 21.  
But it has distasted some (says he) that RESPECT and HONOUR should be given unto them (Images of Christ.) Strange it should displease any, that can approve of any, be it but a Civil use of them. I cannot tell; unless Men would instantly have them pulled down in all places, demolished, stamped to powder, whosesoever, whatsoever, wheresoever. The setting of them up, suffering them to stand, using them for Ornaments, for helps of Memory, of Affection, of Rememoration, cannot be abstracted, to my Understanding, from Reverence and Honour Simply, in due kind. Can a Man have the True Representation of his Prince, Parents, Patrons, etc. without Awe, Respect, Regard, Love, Reverence, moved by Aspect, and wrought in him? I profess my Imperfection, or what they will call it, it is so with me. Unco impacto in Latrinas, in Gemonias, in malam Crucem, the Pictures, Statues, Paintings, Representations, of Christ, the Virgin, Apostles, Martyrs, Holy Men and Women; unless the very having and preserving of them, do in some sort imply RESPECT, REGARD and HONOUR done unto them, without offence justly given, without Scandal, or Inclination to Impiety. Then he urges the Truth of this Doctrine with the words of Junius. Junius, says he, was no Papist; not in your opinion, I hope. He in his Animadversions upon Bellarmin de Imaginibus, says, Hoc nemo NOSTRVM dicit, non esse COLENDAS, nec ullo modo. Suo modo COLI probamus, velut Imagines; at non religioso cultu, qui aut superstitiosus est, aut impius; nec cum aliorum scandalo, sive Cultus separatus sive conjunctus cum eorum Cultu intelligatur, quorum sunt Imagines. None of us say, that Images are no ways to be worshipped. We prove that they are to be worshipped in a way peculiar to them, as Images, but not with a Religious Worship, which is either Superstitious or Impious: Neither to the scandal of others, whether the Worship be understood the same, or different from that which is given to the things Represented by them.  
Thus this Learned Man delivers and defends the Doctrine of his Church in relation to the Images of Christ and his Saints, against the Arguments of some Informers, which he thinks to be no other than Puritans, and at best, some FURIOUS ONES of his own Church, or SINGULAR ILLUMINATES, as he terms them, ib. c. 20. And now what great difference here in this Point between the Two Churches? The Council of Trent says, that Images of CHRIST, etc. aught to be set up in Churches, and DUE HONOUR and VENERATION given them. The Church of England (by Mr. Montague) says, that the Images of Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary and Saints, may be set up in Churches; RESPECT and HONOUR may be given them in Due kind; The using them for helps of Memory, of Affection, of Rememoration cannot be abstracted from REVERENCE and HONOUR simply, in DUE kind. The Catechism ad Parochos says, These Images are set up in Churches, ut Colantur, that they may be Honoured or Worshipped; that is, in due kind. The Protestants say (by Junius) None of us deny, but they may be Honoured or Worshipped in their kind: Nay more, We prove, They are to be Worshipped in some manner, that is, as Images. Both Churches than agree, that Sacred Images may be set up in Churches; that a Respect, Honour and Reverence is due to them, in their kind; and both concur in terming this Honour or Reverence, Cultus or Worship, i. e. in its kind, Suo modo. Junius expressing it due, velut Imagines, as they are Images, The Council of Trent, because they Represent Christ, etc. which is upon the very same reason and ground.  
Besides this, 'tis agreed by both Churches, that this Reverence shown to these things, is founded purely upon the Relation they have to God, and is terminated finally upon him. This as to the Church of Rome, appears from what is already quoted out of the Council of Trent: And as to the Church of England, from the words of Montagu above mentioned. And from Bishop Jewel, who (in Rep. ag. Hard.) says; We Worship the Sacrament, the Word of God, we Worship all other things in such Religious wise to Christ belonging. And then afterwards giving the Reason: The Sacraments be Adored (says▪ he) but the whole Honour resteth not in them, but is passed over from them to the things Signified. Which is the very Relative Honour mentioned so often by Catholic Divines. And this Divinity is found likewise in some Modorn Churchmen, as Dr. Stillingfleet, who (in his Def. ag. T. G. pa. 600.) says, that Although no Irrational or Inanimate Being be capable of that real Excellency, to deserve any Honour from us for it's own sake; yet such things may have a Relation to matters of so High a Nature, as to deserve a different Usage and Regard from other things: And this afterwards he terms a Reverence, and, if I may so call it, a Religious Respect to Sacred Places and Things. In which words, tho' there's some Mincing it; yet it delivers in some manner the whole Doctrine of Catholics.  
The two Churches thus agreeing in the lawfulness of placing Images in Churches, and that an Honour, or Reverence, or even Worship in its kind, is necessarily due to them, as they serve for helps to Piety; of Affection or Rememoration, and have Relation to God. The Answerer of these leaves of Nubes Testium, lets fly at all this, like one of Montagu's FURIOUS ONES, or SINGULAR ILLUMINATES. He runs it down, under the Name of IMAGE-WORSHIP; and is sure, with this very Word alone, so far to prevail upon the Ignorant and Vulgar at least (with whom, by his loose arguing, he seems chiefly concerned) as to gain their Votes, in crying down the Papists for Idolaters; and then his Business is done. Upon this strain he runs to the end of his Pamphlet, proving that Image-Worship is contrary to Fathers, to Antiquity, to Councils; Image-Worship, Image-Worship, is all the Cant: But never tells, what this Image-Worship is; and never reflects, that his own Church is for an Image-Worship too.  
Thus unhappily in the midst of Dust and Noise he manages the Controversy with the Papists, without ever Stating the Question, or declaring what the Papists hold, unbecoming a Scholar; and multiplying many Needless Contentions, unbecoming a Christian.  
If he had examined the Doctrine of his own Church, and understood what Catholics teach, he would have soon discovered the vanity of this Engagement; and found, that after so much bustle upon this matter, there's but little more in't, besides Fight about Names and Words; and that however tolerable this may be in a School for a Logic Dispute, 'tis unworthy of a Divine, who pretends to be a Preacher of the Gospel of Peace.  
'Tis already here made out to any unprejudiced Considerer, that, according to the Doctrine of Protestants, especially those of the Church of England, 'tis impossible to separate even the Historical Use of Holy Images, from a Respect and Reverence which necessarily follows them: Much less can they serve as Helps to Piety, for the exciting Devotion, and bringing to mind the Persons Represented, but they force from the beholders an Interior Love and Honour; so that, as 'tis impossible, for a Good Subject to have by him the Picture of his Prince and of a Traitor, without being differently affected in his Soul towards them, even in the very same manner, as he is to the Persons they Represent. So neither can a Faithful and Good Christian, behold the Pictures or other Representations of Christ, of Judas, of Mahomet, but his Soul will be differently moved towards them with Love, Respect, Honour, Veneration, on the one side; with Indignation and Contempt on the other, as he finds himself affected to the Persons Represented by them. Thus far is acknowledged by Protestants, and may be gathered from what is above cited out of Montagu and Junius. Catholics say the same, and so cannot be censured or condemned for this. What then is their Crime? The Charge urged against them is, that they show this same Honour and Veneration outwardly to these Holy Images of Christ, the Apostles, etc. They kiss them, pull off their Hats, they Bow, they Kneel, Burn Tapers, Incense, and Pray before them: This is the Crime, this the Image-Worship and Idolatry of the Catholics.  
And here, in their behalf, and to bring this Voluminous Controversy into a Narrower Compass, I must ask of the Answerer; If it be lawful for Protestants and Catholics to have an INTERIOR Respect, Honour and Reverence for Holy Images, as appears evidently confessed above; how comes it to be so Unlawful and Abominable for Catholics to signify and express outwardly this same Respect, Honour and Reverence, which is so Commendable for all Christians, both Catholics and Protestants, to have Inwardly in their Souls? Certainly, That Honour and Reverence, which in the Heart is Christian, cannot but be Christian in the Expression: And 'tis very absurd, to think a Duty can become Idolatry by professing it. If a Christian has a greater Reverence in his Soul, for the Book of the Holy Scriptures, than for any other Book whatsoever, may not he lawfully express this Reverence by Kissing it? If the Woman in the Gospel, respects and Honours in her Heart the Hem of our Saviour's Garment; is the Kissing that Hem, any more Idolatry, than was that Affection and Reverence she had in her Soul towards it? If a Christian has a Respect and Reverence even for the House of God, or Church, above other Houses, that are not Dedicated to his Service; may not he show this Respect, by Uncovering his Head? If a Christian Honours the Communion-Table above other Profane Tables; may not this Honour be exteriorly professed, by setting Candles on it, and Plate, and adorning it with Hangings, and then Bowing to it, without a Crime?  
If a Christian Reverences and Honours in his Heart the NAME of Jesus, or of the Cross, as the Church of England says the Apostles did; can it be Idolatry outwardly to profess this same Honour, by Bowing or Bending the Knee? And if he Respects the Sacrament, may not he show this exteriorly, by receiving it Kneeling? And if these Exterior Professions and Acknowledgements of the Interior Respect, Honour and Reverence that is due to these things, may be thus commendably shown, by Kissing, Uncovering the Head, by Tapers, Ornaments, Bowing and Kneeling, without any Abomination in the sight of God, or just Scandal to our Neighbour; why may not the like Interior Respect and Honour, acknowledged due to Holy Representations of Christ or his Saints, be professed outwardly by the same Visible Expressions of Respect and Reverence: Especially since what is done to all these things, is upon no other account, than the Relation they have to God, and as appertaining to him and his Service?  
Neither let the Answerer think to take Sanctuary, in calling this Veneration shown to Pictures and Images of Christ, a Worship, as an Image-Worship: For however this may work upon the Mobile and Unthinking Crowds, and fill their heads with a Notion of Idolatry; yet every Man of Sense and unbiass'd Judgement knows, that this word Worship is equivocal, and that 'tis not every thing is presently made an Idol of, which is any ways said to be Worshipped: As is shown at large in The Pap. Misrep. 2. Part. c. 5, 6. For 'tis not only the Honour, which Catholics show to Holy Images, is called a Worship; but likewise that is a Worship, which Protestants give; as is owned by Junius above; so that in this Sense Protestant's may be said and proved to be Image-Worshipers too. The Reverence likewise showed by Protestants to the Sacrament, is called by Jewel (Rep. to Hard.) a Worship: The Honour given to the Bible he styles a Worship. In the same way of speaking, the Respect to the Communion-Table may be termed a Worship; Bowing in Reverence to the Name of Jesus may be styled a Worship. And in this Sense, 'twill not only be laid to the Church of England's charge, that she teaches and approves Image-Worship; but likewise Bread Worship, Book-Worship, Table-Worship, and Name-Worship: And 'twill not be very difficult, by the equivocation of this word, and the help of a little Pulpit-Sophistry, to paint out This Church as Black with Idolatry and Superstition, to the People, as she has done the Church of Rome.  
And it does not at all reflect upon the Church of Rome, or her Doctrine, that some of her Divines call this Respect, Honour, Veneration or Worship paid to Holy Images a Religious Respect, or Honour, etc. For this is only a Dispute about a Word; and let it be called by what Name they please, whether Honorary, Religious, or Divine, this altars not the Nature of the thing; for 'tis but the same thing, by whatsoever Name it be expressed. If some will have every Respect or Veneration, shown to Holy Things, as to the Bible, the Sacrament, the Name of Jesus, for the Relation they have to God, to be called a Religious Worship, let 'em call it so in God's Name. And if others will have no Veneration or Worship to be Religious, but that which is directly and immediately given to God; let 'em have their way. These are fine Notions, and pretty Entertainments for School-debates; but are no concern of our Religion or Conscience. For as long as 'tis owned, that there's a Respect and Reverence due to such Holy things, as in some particular manner have relalation to God and his Service, and we only express this Respect outwardly, which interiorly we feel in our Souls; let this be called an Honour, a Worship, an Adoring; let it be said to be Honorary, Religious or Divine; let it be deemed Absolute or Relative, 'tis equally alike to us; since we are satisfied, the wrangling of the Learned about Names and Words, has no influence upon the Acts of our Souls; and cannot make that to be Idolatrous, which in itself is not so.  
Here then may the Reader see, how stands this Controversy between Catholics and the Church of England Protestants. Both Churches acknowledge, that there's an Honour, and Reverence that may be lawfully given to the Holy Images and Pictures of Christ. Both Churches express this Honour outwardly: Protestants, by using them in their Churches and Prayer-books, which (as Montagu says) cannot be abstracted from giving them Honour and Reverence. While Catholics go farther, and say, that 'tis lawful to express this Honour and Reverence due to them, as they have relation to God, by Kissing them, pulling off the Hat, Bowing, Setting of Tapers, etc. before them, in the same manner, and with no more just occasion of Scandal, and no more breach of any Commandment, than the Church of England does express the Veneration She shows to the Bible in Kissing it; to the Church, by pulling off the Hat; to the Name of Jesus, by Bowing; to the Communion-Table, by setting Candles on it. Which being so many Actions intended to signify the Interior Sentiment and Affection of the Soul; there can certainly be no more of Idolatry in them, or Superstition, than there is in the Intention, or in the Act of the Soul; the one being the same outwardly, what the other is inwardly. And, however some Divines and Leading Men of the Church of England, who are in love with wrangling, and through the Influence of an Unchristian Temper, seem to be afraid of a better Understanding coming amongst Christians, take pains to blow up this Controversy with some School and Empty Notions; yet 'tis not to be thought, there's any great difference between the Two Churches, were they to Speak their Sense in a Cool and Moderate Temper, where they might be free from the Suggestions of such Hot and Fiery Spirits, who seem to be rather Men of State and Policy, than of Religion. For, can it be imagined, that the Church of England, who confesses, that the Holy Ghost himself, the Apostles, and Primitive Christians instructed by the Apostles, Honoured the NAME of the Cross, and had an Honourable Esteem for the SIGN of the Cross, can be in good earnest against those, who express outwardly this Honour, which in itself is thus acknowledged of Divine Institution, and to have been the Doctrine of the Apostles? If the Apostles too, as she owns above, did honour the NAME of the Cross by their Mouths and Words; can she condemn those, who do the like with their Hands, their Heads or Knees? If it be the Doctrine of the Holy Ghost, to have this Honour for the Name and Sign of the Cross in our Hearts; and the Apostles, by the instinct of that Holy Spirit, did express this by their Words; may not We do so too? And if We may do this in Words, may not we do it in any other way of Expressing our Sense, which Nature has given us, and are answerable to Words? Words are nothing more than for their Signification; and if we signify our thoughts by any other way, as by Signs, by any Motion, or Gesture of our Body; these Actions being to express the same affection of our Soul, which we other ways do by Words, they are as Innocent as our Words; and 'tis impossible the Actions should be Idolatrous, whilst the Words are Orthodox: Since being taught by the Apostles, to have an Honour in our Hearts for the SIGN of the Cross, 'tis the same thing before God and Men, whether we signify this outwardly by our Tongues, or by our Lips, or by our Hands, or by our Heads, or by our Knees; these being only so many different kinds of Speaking, to signify one and the same sense of our hearts. And whilst they are so, there can be nothing justly charged upon any one of these ways of Expressing, but will as certainly fall upon all the rest; for they being all upon the same intention and design, of showing outwardly the Honour we are taught by the Apostles to have in our hearts, and this Honour thus severally expressed, being but one and the same, founded upon the Relation the Sign of the Cross has to Christ; if it be a Religious Worship, when 'tis signified by the Knee, 'tis Religious too when signified by the Tongue, and alike Religious whilst 'tis in the Heart; if it be Idolatrous to express it by the Knee in bending, 'tis Idolatrous too, to express it with the Tongue in Words; and most of all Idolatrous, as it is in the Heart.  
Upon this Point turns the Greatest part of this Controversy, which of itself is very inconsiderable. But our Answerer takes little care to see how the Question stands; He's for exposing the Church of Rome, and as long as he has the knack of doing this by Ridiculing, and Drolling, what should he trouble himself with such impertinencies, as are stating the Question, and speaking to the Point? He's satisfied the word Image-worship will do the work, without much need of longer Proofs; and therefore waving all such kind of Controversial Drudgery, he falls to the Historical part, in which, from the different account of Historians, the disagreement in Time and Place and other Circumstances, he easily fills all with Confusion and Uncertainty. A tedious work he makes about the second Council of Nice, and sets it out in such abusive Language, with so much contempt and scorn, that he seems, at his writing this Character, to have come fresh from a Billingsgate Lecture. Hear how he attacks that Venerable Synod: They were a Pack of Greeks (says he pa. 38.) that were neither the wisest, nor the honestest Men in the World. Then having undervalved the Proofs of that Council as Senseless and Ridiculous, he adds, pa. 39 Now you may judge, whether these were not rare Greek Wits. Yet we might forgive their want of Brains, if they had been Men of Integrity; but they were dishonest too. In this manner does he compliment this great Synod with the Honourable Titles of Fools and Knaves. Certainly he must be a wise Man in his own conceit, who makes so bold with three hundred and fifty Fathers, besides the Pope's Legates, and the Vicars of the Oriental Patriarches. But I leave him in this Buffonery, wishing him only much joy of his Admirable Talon in this kind. The Chief thing he urges against this Council, is their establishing, as he pretends, Superstitious Errors, the Worship or Adoration of Images, such as our Author judges to be nothing else than Idolatry; in this, doing altogether like himself, who quarrels with every thing; but how unlike the more Learned and Moderate Divines of his own Church, who vindicate this Council from all such imputations! Mr. Thorndike freely confessing, that he must maintain as unquestionable, that the Council of Nice enjoins no Idolatry, Epilogue. 3. pa. 363. And Dr. Field affirming, that the Nicence Fathers mean nothing else by Adoration of Images, but embracing, kissing, and reverently using of them, and like to the Honour we do the Books of Holy Scripture. (Of the Church l. 3. c. 36.) Thus do these Eminent Men deliver their Sense of this Council and its Doctrine, which our Author has thought fit to render so Ridiculous to the World. He catches at Words, and without Examining or Understanding them, makes Idolatry and Superstition of the most Orthodox and Christian Doctrine: And this I look upon the occasion of his letting fly so furiously at this Venerable Synod, and of all his Raillery against it. But I proceed to consider his other Arguments.  
The principal thing he insists on, and which runs through his whole Pamphlet, is, that we cannot make it appear, even as a thing probable, that Images were so much as set up in Churches in the Primitive Times; and upon this Practice, now so common in the Church of Rome, he presses her with the Gild of Innovation. An Excellent Argument, well becoming a Leader of the People! But this is the Motive of Reforming. And do not some other Reformers, upon the same grounds, prove the use of Organs, in the Divine Service, to be an Innovation; since it cannot be made appear, even as probable, that there were any such things known to the Primitive Christians of the first three or four hundred years? And do not others, still treading over the same steps, make the use of Cathedrals and Churches, of Deaneries and Prebendaries, an Innovation in Christianity; since in the Primitive times there were no such things heard ●f? After this rate some Men are pleased to argue; and at this pace the Reformation may go on improving every day, till there's nothing of Christianity left, if such Principles and Reasons of some Church of England Reformers are but followed, as Just and Convincing. But these can have no authority, but with some Weak and Passionate Men. Others, who weigh things duly, know that the Circumstances of the Primitive Christians, their being under Severe Persecution, their living and conversing in the middle of Pagans and Jews, etc. did make many things inconvenient and unseasonable at that time, especially such as related to the Solemnity and Order of the Church, which otherwise were Good and Apostolical. This Mr. Montagu, a Wise and Learned Man, throughly considered; and particularly in relation to Images, which, he says, in the first Ages were but few or none in public, not because they were then Unlawful, or contrary to the Doctrine of the Apostles; but because they were inconvenient in those times of Persecution and Paganism. I'll here set down his own words to satisfy the Answerer, and to let him see the difference between the Spirit of Peace and Moderation, and that of Bitterness and Wrangling. Thus than that Worthy Divine argues in his Appeal to Caesar, c. 23.  
As the Ancient Fathers of the Primitive Times had very few or no Churches at all, at least of Note, Dignity or of Receipt, because they lived in Times of fierce Persecution, and were seldom, or Few of them Stationary, but compelled subinde mutare sedes; so had they very few, I grant, or no Pictures at all in public use amongst them, not so much as for Ornament sake. And the reason was, because they lived continually amongst Pagans, and were themselves, for the most part, such as had abandoned and come over from Paganism unto Christ; that were bred in, brought up in, enured to, and fast settled unto Idolatry in Image-worship. Therefore they spoke against them with some tartness and inveighing sort, lest haply by conversing with, or neighbouring upon Pagans, or through former use of being misled by those Pagans, the Novel and tender Shoots of Christianity might receive hurt, and learn to worship Idols, as those Pagans did. In which words this Author plainly declares, that tho' there was not the public use of Images in the first Ages; yet the admittance of them afterwards into Churches was no Innovation, as our Answerer pretends; but the practising of a thing, which in all the precedent Ages had been just and lawful, but not expedient, for the reasons here assigned by him. Which thing the same Author has thus clearly delivered in the foregoing Chapter, where speaking of the use of Images: Before St. Gregory, says he, I know no such confessed employment for them. He was the first that gave such public approbation unto them DECLARATORILY, tho' it was TRUE DOCTRINE IN ITSELF, before he ever professed it such. Can any thing be more clearly expressed? Is it not evidently here acknowledged by a Church of England Divine, that the Use of Images, as approved and allowed by Pope Gregory, who was for giving Reverence and Respect unto them, as this Author confesses in the same Chapter, was a True Doctrine in itself; tho' it was never professedly declared before this time? And yet our Answerer, unacquainted it seems with the Doctrine of his own Church, and with the Circumstances of the Primitive Church, comes here with the full Cry of Innovation, giving the World and me a needless trouble of stating this Controversy, which has been so long ago decided, as to this Point, by a Divine of his own Church. But alas, some Men, who have for a long time from their Castle of Privilege, with a Noisy, but Empty Controversy, peevishly declaimed against all sorts of Adversaries; and there boastingly triumphed, where they know no body dared contradict or question them, vainly think they may do the like in Print, and that they may as easily impose upon all Readers, as upon their Hearers. And I desire our Answerer to consider, how far he is here concerned, who thus dares to venture abroad, with these Raw and Vnconnected Notions.  
But the Answerer is resolved however, to convince his Reader of the Unlawfulness of Images; and in order to this tells him, as before, that the Ancient Heretics were Friends to Images. I want ask here; Why then does the Church of England use them in her Places of Worship? But, I'll tell him in his own Words, that this is a Silly Artifice; and that every thing is not to be condemned, which was used by such a sort of People. He knows, I hope, that the Ancient Heretics used the Bible too, as likewise Preaching and Churches, and yet sure all these are not to be rejected upon this score. I have here showed him already out of his own Authors, who first declaratorily established the use of Holy Images, giving Reverence and Respect unto them; and that this was a True Doctrine in itself, before he ever professed it: And what matter then, if some Heretics admitted of the same, who are wont to abuse even the best of things, as the Answerer says, the Gnostics did, pa. 57 who ranked Christ's Image with those of Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle. As to what he says before, pag. 53. that Pope Gregory I. and II. contradict each other in this Point, he would do well to explicate this fuller in his next; for Pope Gregory II. is no more for Adoration of Images, than Gregory I. as appears in that Letter of his to Leo Isaurus cited in Nubes Testium, pa. 183. Where writing to the Emperor: You charge us, says he, with the Adoration of Stones, and Walls, and Pictures. But 'tis not so as you affirm, O Emperor! What we do is only to refresh our Memory, to raise our minds to Heaven,— and not, as you urge, to Worship them as Gods; no, God forbid, we place no hope in them. How then does he contradict Gregory I. while he's no more for Worshipping Images than he was? But he that has Forehead enough to charge me with a Notion of Invocating of Images, as he does, pa. 66. when I have no such Word or Hint, must not be called to an account for every thing he says.  
I have little more to consider in this Letter of the Answerer, besides his great Kindness and Affection to the Heathens, who, with his Good Friend Dr. Stillingfleet, is so favourable to them, as in a manner to excuse them from Idolatry, so the better to fix this Crime upon the Papists: Tho' the Doctrine of the Papists, in this Point, is so like what the Church of England teaches, that (as is shown above) there's little difference betwixt them, besides about School Terms and Words. The World knows the good understanding there was between Sultan Solyman and Martin Luther, and how friendly the Followers of this New Prophet were taught to be to the Turks; but why our English Reformers upon Martin Luther should be at this day so kind to the Heathens, must be left to every one to guests. The Answerer assures the Person of Quality, pa. 11. to whom he writes, that to charge the Heathens with Worshipping Stocks and Stones as Gods, is to Misrepresent them. And yet how many times has this very thing been instilled into the People's Heads, as True of the Papists, which now, as we are informed, is a Misrepresentation, when affirmed of the Pagans? Are not the Pagans here deeply indebted to these Church of England Men, in their owning them to be Misrepresented, whilst the same Abomination is so liberally charged upon the Papists, and yet no Misrepresentation there, if you'll believe 'em? This is to make the Papists worse than Heathens; and without either Respect to Duty or Good manners, to advance even now that Plot-Divinity, which was Preached by a Doctor before the House of Commons, April 11. 1679. Who setting out Popery in such colours, as might be most effectual to excite that Assembly to the Drawing of Blood, after several Dreadful Characters, at last pa. 30. thus concludes; Nay, says he, it is a Religion, that will engage you in a more Unnatural Idolatry, than ever the Pagans were guilty of. Is not this a rare Character of one Christian from another? Nay from Church of England Christians too, such who pretend to so much Charity and Moderation above their Neighbours; and yet to cast forth so much Gall and Venom, that could be expected from none, but another Julian, or a Lucian? But I take no advantage here, I consider this was delivered in a time of an Epidemical Madness; and what wonder, if the Pulpits did not escape the Contagion? But why at this time of the day should this Lecture be read to the People? Is not the Plot out of some People's heads yet? Is the Infection so lasting? But what shall we say; the Enclosure of some Men's Religion, is only to be against Popery. They raise a monstrous Notion in their own Brains; and while they expose this to the People, they make the Innocent suffer for their Delusion. They'll join hands with the Turk or the Pagan, so they can but make a Devil of the Papist. And in this some of their Furioso's are so blindly rash, that they care not how Antichristian they make their own Church, so they can but set out the Papists for Idolaters. For here I desire any serious Man to consider, if the Papists were thus really Idolaters, as bad or worse than the Heathens, as these Men suggest, what Advantage would this be to the Church of England? What kind of Church must the Church of England be, who has no Ordination, Succession, or Authority of Preaching, but what she has received from these Idolaters? What kind of Church must she be, whilst she owns herself and These Idolaters to be Parts of the same Church? What kind of Church must she be, whilst she acknowledges, that all her Members for a Thousand Years before Henry 8. were in Communion with these Idolaters; and in all External Rites and Worship, were comprehended in the Papacy? Must not she have been a very Dissembling and Adulterous Church; whilst believing internally the True and Pure Faith of Christ, she did for so many years externally practise all the supposed Superstitions and Idolatries of the Church of Rome, which she judged to be most Wicked and Damnable? Is not this an admirable Character of a Pretended Church of Christ, to have played the Hypocrite for so many Ages, committing Adultery with the Supposed Whore of Babylon, and partaking in all her pretended Abominations? What greater Blow could an Enemy give to the Church of England, than some of her Divines do thus with their own hands, who, like Spiritual Janissaries, destroy their own Mother Church of which they are Members? For is it not evident, that whilst they endeavour to make the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry, they prove their own Church for so many years to have been Idolatrous, to have been a Dissembling Church, a Church denying Christ and his Religion, a Church for Temporal Respects committing many Idolatries and Superstitions, and consequently, no Church at all?  
And what more Forcible Argument need any Dissenters to justify their Separation from the Church of England? For since the greatest part of those things upon which the Dissent is founded, are such as have been instituted and commanded by the Church of Rome, why should they receive them from the Church of England, whilst these same Church-Guides, who press the Observance, take so much pains to prove those from whom they received them, to be Idolaters, and a sort of Christians worse than Heathens? What reason has any Man to join in such a Form of Worship and Divine Service, when he is assured, that Those from whom the greatest Part is borrowed, are Idolaters? Why should any be tied to such Ceremonies, if those that instituted them were Idolaters? 'Tis but Rational for every Man to think, that if the Papists are so Stupid, so Sottish, so Ridiculous, such Idolaters, so worse than Heathens, as every little Church-Divine is pleased to render them, that the Church of England, who retains so much of their Service and Ceremonies, must of necessity be so far like them in Sottishness, Ridiculosity, Idolatry and Heathenism; and the only way to become a Pure Christian, must be to shake off, even that which She has retained. This is a very Obvious reasoning; and I don't question, has so powerfully wrought upon the minds of Infinite Numbers, and widened the Separation to that degree, that the very Crime of the Church of England in her Bitter and unjust Invectives against the Papists, has by a just hand of God proved her Punishment; whilst her endeavours to alienate the People's minds from Popery, has embittered them even against herself, and been so fatal to her, that by the same means she has made People no Papists, she has made them Dissenters from her own Communion, and raised to herself almost as many Enemies, as she inteded against the Church of Rome. Our Answerer, has lent a helping hand in this Point; I do not mean here by his Peevish, Scandalous Pulpit Invectives; but in this his pretended Answer to this Part of Nubes Testium; whilst he has scarce any one Argument, but what is levelled as much against his own Church (if that be really his, which he pretends) as against the Papists: Tho' in reality, to any Intelligent Reader, there is but very little against either: The whole being made up of Vulgar Sophisms, Wordy Disputes, and Arguing at Rovers: But the Author is to be excused; the Whole is nothing more than a Letter: And every body knows, that a Letter, however proper it may be to the Person, to whom 'tis directed, is many times very Absurd, when 'tis divulged and made Common; we'll excuse therefore the Writer, but really he is to blame that Published it.  
FINIS.