Papist Misrepresented and Represented, contains the following anathema, in which I am confident every Catholic existing will readily join, "Cursed is he that commits idolatry; that prays to images or relics, or worships them for God. Amen." : Dr. Porteus is very positive that there is no Scriptural warrant for retaining and venerating these exterior memorials, and he maintains that no other memorial ought to be admitted than the Lord's Supper.* * Does he remember the ark of the covenant, made by the command of God, together with the punishment of those who profaned it, and the blessing bestowed on those who revered it? And what was the ark of the covenant, after all? A chest of Settim wood, containing the tables of the law and two golden pots of manna; the whole being covered over by two carved images of cherubims; in short, it was a memorial of God's mercy and bounty to his people. But, says the bishop, "The Roman Catholics make images of Christ and of his saints after their own fancy before these images, and even that of the cross, they kneel down and prostrate themselves to these they lift up their eyes, and in that posture they pray." Supposing all this to be true; has the bishop never read, that when the Israelites were smitten at Ai, Joshua fell to the earth upon his face, before the ark of the Lord, until the even tide, he and the elders of Israel, and Joshua said, Alas, O Lord God, &c. Jos. vii. 6. Does not he himself oblige those who frequent the above-mentioned memorial, to kneel and prostrate themselves before it, at which time it is to be supposed they lift up their eyes to the sacrament and say their prayers? Does not he require of his people that "when the name of JESUS is pronounced in any lesson, &c. due reverence be made of all with lowness of courtesie ?" And does he consider as well founded, the outcry of idolatry against the established church, on this and the preceding point, raised by the dissenters? Again, is not his lordship in the habit of kneeling to his majesty and of bowing with the other peers, to an empty chair when it is placed as his throne? Does he not often reverently kiss the material substance of printed paper and leather, I mean the Bible, because it relates to and represents the sacred word of God? When the bishop of London shall have well considered these several matters, methinks he will understand the nature of relative honour, by which an inferior respect may be paid to the sign, for the sake of the thing signified, better than he seems to do at present; and he will neither directly nor indirectly charge the Catholics + Confut. p. 27. Canons 1603, n. 18. * P. 28. + Injunctions, A. D. 1559, n. 52. with idolatry, on account of indifferent ceremonies, which take their nature from the intention of those who use them. During the dispute about pious images, which took place in the eighth century, St. Stephen of Auxence, having endeavoured in vain to make his persecutor, the emperor Copronimus, conceive the nature of relative honour and dishonour in this matter, threw a piece of money, bearing the emperor's figure, on the ground, and treated it with the utmost indignity; when the latter soon proved, by his treatment of the saint, that the affront regarded himself rather than the piece of metal.* The bishop objects, that the Catholics "make pictures of God the Father under the likeness of a venerable old man." Certain painters indeed have represented him so, as in fact he was pleased to appear so to some of the prophets, Isa. vi. 1 Dan. vii. 9; but the council of Trent says nothing concerning that representation, which, after all, is not so common as that of a triangle among Protestants, to represent the trinity. Thus much, however, is most certain, that if any Christian were obstinately to maintain, that the divine nature resembles the human form, he would be an anthropomorphite heretic. The bishop moreover signifies, what most other Protestant controvertists express more coarsely, that to screen our idolatry we have suppressed the second commandment of the Decalogue, and to make up the deficiency, we have split the tenth commandment into two. My answer is, that I apprehend many of these disputants are ignorant enough to believe that the division of the commandments, in their Common Prayer Book, was copied, if not from the identical Tables of Moses, at least from his original text of the Pentateuch; but the bishop, as a man of learning, must know that in the original Hebrew, and in the several copies and versions of it, during some thousands of years, there was no mark of separation between one commandment and another; so that we have no rules to be guided by, in making the distinction, but the sense of the context, and the authority of the most approved fathers,† both which we follow. In the mean time, it is a gross calumny that we suppress any part of the Decalogue; for the whole of it appears in all our Bibles, and in all our most approved catechisms. To be brief, the words, Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven thing, are either a prohibi + St. Augustin, Quæst. in Exod. Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. vi. Hieron, in Ps. xxxii. Catech. Roman ad Paroch. The folio Catech. of Montpelier. Douay Catech. Abridgment of Christian Doctrine. tion of all images, and, of course, those round the bishop's own. cathedral of St. Paul, as likewise of all existing coins; which I am sure he will not agree to; or else it is a mere prohibition of images made to receive divine worship, in which we perfectly agree with him. You will observe, dear sir, that I intend to include relics, meaning things which have some way appertained to and been left by personages of eminent sanctity, among religious memorials. Indeed the ancient fathers generally call them by that name. Surely Dr. Porteus will not say that there is no warrant in Scripture for honouring these, when he recollects that, From the body of St. Paul were brought unto the sick, handkerchiefs and aprons, and the diseases departed from them, Acts, xix. 12; and that, When the dead man was let down and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived and stood upon his feet. 2 Kings xiii. 21. But to make an end of the present discussion: nothing but the pressing want of a strong pretext for breaking communion with the ancient church could have put the revolters upon so extravagant an attempt as that of confounding the inferior and relative honour which Catholics pay to the memorials of Christ and his saints, (an honour which they themselves pay to the Biblebook,) to the name of JESUS, and even to the king's throne) with the idolatry of the Israelites to their golden calf, Exod. xxxii. 4, and of the ancient heathens to their idols, which they believed to be inhabited by their gods. In a word, the end for which pious pictures and images are made and retained by Catholics, is the same for which pictures and images are made and retained by mankind in general, to put us in mind of the persons and things they represent. They are not primarily intended for the purpose of being venerated; nevertheless, as they bear a certain relation with holy persons and things, by representing them, they become entitled to a relative or secondary veneration; in the manner already explained. I must not forget one important use of pious pictures, mentioned by the holy fathers, namely, that they help to instruct the ignorant. Still, it is a point agreed upon among Catholic doctors and divines, that the memorials of religion form no essential part of it. Hence, if you should be * St. Gregory_calls pictures Idiotarum libri. Epist. L. ix. 9. + The learned Petavius says: "We must lay it down as a principle, that images are to be reckoned among the adiphora, which do not belong to the substance of religion, and which the church may retain or take away as she judges best." L. xv. de Incar. Hence Dr. Hawarden, Of Images, p. 353, teaches with Delphinus, that if in any place, there is danger of real idolatry or superstition from pictures, they ought to be removed by the pastors; as St. Epiphanius destroyed a certain pious picture, and Ezechias destroyed the brazen serpent. come a Catholic, as I pray God you may, I shall never ask you, if you have a pious picture or relic, or so much as a crucifix in your possession: but then, I trust, after the declarations I have made, that you will not account me an idolater, should you see such things in my oratory or study, or should you observe how tenacious I am of my crucifix, in particular. Your faith and devotion may not stand in need of such memorials: but mine, alas! do. I am too apt to forget what my Saviour has done and suffered for me; but the sight of his representation often brings this to my memory, and affects my sentiments. Hence I would rather part with most of the books in my library, than with the figure of my crucified Lord. REV. SIR, LETTER XXXV. I am, &c. J. M. To the Rev. ROBERT CLAYTON, M. A. OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. I LEARN by a letter from our worthy friend, Mr. Brown, as well as by your own, that I am to consider you, and not him, as the person charged to make the objections, which are to be made, on the part of the church of England, against my theological positions and arguments in future. I congratulate the society of New Cottage on the acquisition of so valuable a member as Mr. Clayton, and I think myself fortunate in having so clear-headed and candid an opponent to contend with, as his letter shows him to be. You admit, that, according to my explanation, which is no other than that of our divines, our catechisms and our councils in general, we are not guilty of idolatry in the honour we pay to saints and their memorials, and that the dispute between your church and mine upon these points, is a dispute about words rather than about things, as bishop Bossuet observes, and as several candid Protestants, before you, have confessed. You and bishop Porteus agree with us, that "the saints are to be loved and honoured; on the other hand, we agree with you, that it would be idolatrous to pay them divine worship, or to pray to their memorials in any shape whatever. Hence, the only question remaining between us is concerning the utility of desir ing the prayers of the saints: for you say it is useless, because you think that they cannot hear us, and that, therefore, the prac tice is superstitious: whereas, I have vindicated the practice itself, and have shown that the utility of it no way depends on the circumstance of the blessed spirits immediately hearing the addresses made to them. Still you complain that I have not answered all the bishop's objections against the doctrine and practices in question. My reply is, that I have answered the chief of them and whereas they are, for the most part, of ancient date, and have been again and again solidly refuted by our divines, I shall send to New Cottage, together with this letter, a work of one of them, who, for depth of learning and strength of argument, has not been surpassed since the time of Bellarmin.*. There, Rev. sir, you will find all that you inquire after, and you will discover, in particular, that the worship of the angels, which St. Paul condemns in his Epistle to the Colossians, chap. ii. 18, means, that of the fallen or wicked angels, whom Christ despoiled, ver. 15, and which was paid to them by Simon the magician and his followers, as the makers of the world. Ás to the doctrine of Bellarmin concerning images, it is plain that his lordship never consulted the author himself, but only his misrepresenter Vitringa; otherwise, he would have gathered from the whole of this precise theologian's distinctions, that he teaches precisely the contrary to that which he is represented to teach.t You next observe, that I have said nothing concerning the extravagant forms of prayer to the blessed Virgin and other saints, which Dr. Porteus has collected from Catholic prayer books, and which, you think, prove that we attribute an abso lute and unbounded power to those heavenly citizens. I am aware, Rev. sir, that his lordship, as well as another bishop, who is all sweetness of temper, except when Popery is mentioned in his hearing, and indeed a crowd of other Protestant writers, has employed himself in making such collections, but from what sources, for the greater part I am ignorant. If I were to charge his faith, or the faith of his church with all the conclusions that could logically be drawn from different forms of prayer to be met with in the books of her most distinguished prelates and divines, or from the Scriptures themselves, I fancy the bishop would strongly protest against that mode of reason *The true church of Christ, by Edward Hawarden, DD. S. T. P. The author was engaged in successful contests with Dr. Clark, bishop Bull, Mr. Leslie, and other eminent Protestant divines. The work has been lately republished in Dublin by Coyne. + See De Imag. L. ii. c. 24. The bishop of Hereford, Dr. Huntingford, who has squeezed a large quantity of this irrelevant matter into his examination of the Catholic Petition. |