The papist represented, and not misrepresented being in answer to the first sheet of the second part of the Papist misrepresented and represented : and for a further vindication of the catechism truly representing the doctrine and practices of the Church of Rome.

The papist represented, and not misrepresented being in answer to the first sheet of the second part of the Papist misrepresented and represented : and for a further vindication of the catechism truly representing the doctrine and practices of the Church of Rome.

Table of contents

Title page

THE PAPIST REPRESENTED, And Not Misrepresented, &c.

THE PAPIST REPRESENTED, And Not Misrepresented, &c.

[Page]

[Page]

AFter a Cause hath been managed to so plain a Disadvantage, that there hath been no place left, and no reasonable care taken for its defence, He must have a good Measure of assurance in himself, and presume too much upon the weakness or good Nature, the ignorance or drowsiness of the Age he lives in, that before the Controversie is cold, shall venture the same again into the World, without offering at any shew of a New Argument, to support and vindicate the Old. And yet this is the case of the Author of the Second Part of the Papist Misreprented and Represented; who in the single Chapter newly published, of the Veneration shown to Images, hath in substance and contrivance transcribed what was wrote upon the same Subject in the First Part, and that with as much Liberty [Page] and Confidence, as if there had never been such Books in the World, as the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome, &c. And An Answer to Papists protesting against Protestant Popery; that had taken this Argument to task, and shew'd the weakness and the falshood of it. When I first cast my Eye upon this Sheet, and observed how formally he had drawn up the Argument in the beginning, I thought now, if ever, he would state the Case, and argue closely upon it; and that he that complains so much of the Mists and Confusion raised from the disagreeing Opinions of Divines amongst themselves, and the Infamy cast upon the Doctrine and Practice about Images in their Church, by letting loose the School-debates amongst the Multitude; would have been so kind to the World, as to shew us what we are to trust to, and what those once famous Directors of Controversie and Conscience (the School-men) but now it seems dangerous Enemies to the Peace and Propagation of their Religion, do hold to the Detriment and Disadvantage of it.

But instead of that, we have a Character of an Image-worshipper of his own making, setforth with a various mixture of Similitudes and Resemblances, which after he hath trimm'd up in somewhat a new Fashion, he hopes may pass with better Authority, and be received with greater Respect than whatsoever these abovesaid wrangling Disputants, attended with all their Speculative Scruples (to use his words) can propose.

[Page] But tho' he thinks fit thus to desert the Schools; yet having some Reverence for Them, and more for Truth, I shall gently take him by the Hand, and from the Mists and Confusion of a Declamatory Discourse, turn him back to the old way of Argument, and see if we can better understand one another, and the Cause we are at present concern'd in.

In order to which, I shall shew,

1. What is meant by an Image.

2. What Worship is given, and to be given to an Image in the Church of Rome.

3. That the Catechism he opposeth, hath given no other account of their Doctrine and Practice in this matter, than is conformable to it.

An Image (in the Ecclesiastical sense) is an external and visible Representation of some Divine or Glorified Being and Object, (such as God, the Blessed Trinity, Christ, Angels and Saints) set up for the receiving Religious Honour and Worship.

So that whatever things do not Represent, or are not intended to Represent a Divine or Glorified Object; or that are not set up to receive Religious Worship, or have not Religious Worship given to them, are not concerned in the Dispute. And of this kind thus Excluded, are,

1. All visible signs and marks of Distinction; Such (to use his Instances) are a Lion and Vnicorn when set up in a place to intimate that there the King is owned as Supreme. And such may a [Page] Cross be (where there is occasion) when set up, suppose in or upon a Christian Church, to distinguish it from a Turkish Mosque. But why Crosses or the like should therefore be so necessary, that those that allow them not (as well where this reason is not, as where it is) should be deemed to allow of nothing to shew they are Christians, is an inference of our Authors, but what I confess is past my understanding.

2. Hereby are Excluded all those Effigies and Pictures that are for Ornament, or that serve to testify the Honour and Respect we bear to the Persons to whom they have a resemblance. And of this kind are the Pictures of Moses and Aaron, Queen Elizabeth, and King Charles the first of Blessed memory, which are in some of our Churches; and those of Christ and the Apostles, which are retained in others.

3. Hereby are also Excluded all Historical signs, that are intended for the preservation of the memory of Good and Holy Persons; or that occasionally may either excite in us devout thoughts and affections, or that may serve for instruction (if that can be): For how such do instruct like the Bible, when the Bible can instruct those that are before ignorant of the Mysteries of our Religion; but a Picture or Image cannot instruct without somewhat else to instruct before or with it; Or how an Image or Cross is upon this consideration a part of Gods Holy Word, without any difference from that Chapter of the Bible which treats of the same, except the different fashion of the strokes,[Page]and manner of laying on the Ink; are Doctrines that become a member of that Church, which for the better Edification of the People, whilst it exposes Images to them, keeps the Bible from them.

4. Of this sort are those things which have an eminent relation to God and his Service, to which for that reason a certain reverence and suitable respect is more or less due. And so its lawful and decent to be uncovered at reading the Bible, and the hearing it expounded; and to kiss it in taking an Oath, as a token of the reverence and the regard we have for it. And this we do, not because in the Bible the strokes of the Ink are so ordered and joyn'd in the Paper, that they signifie and Represent the Doctrine and Passion of Christ, (a description that rather becomes a Book of Emblems and Hieroglyphicks, than of Divine Doctrine) not because I say it Represents (as he mistakes) but as it contains the great Articles of our Faith, &c. These are things which the Controversie is not at all concerned in (being either no visible Representations of Divine or Glorified Beings, or not set up for receiving Religious Honour and Worship). And yet to these are all the Resemblances used by our Author, to be refer'd; and who with these, shuts up the whole Controversie, as if there was no other use of Images in the Church of Rome, than what the Pictures of Queen Elizabeth, or Moses and Aaron serve for in ours; and that the Honour and Reverence they give to them, is no more than the reverence we give to the Bible: For thus he concludes, Let Divines wrangle [meaning their own] to the Worlds end, and dispute whether this [Page]Honour, this Reverence and respect shewn to the Bible, to a Preachers Sermon, to Pictures or Images, be the same, or distinct from what is given to the things represented; whether it terminates on them absolutely after an inferior manner, or only relatively, and so forth. This they may go on with, &c. but for his part, he is little concerned. Where he supposeth two things, (1) That it's a Controversie amongst them, whether the Honour and Reverence they give to Consecrated Images and Pictures, be other than what is shewn to the Bible, or a Preachers Sermon: And (2) that the Controversie among their Divines about the Worship given to them, whether Absolute or Negative, is of little concernment; whereas the former (as shall presently be shew'd) neither is nor can be a Controversie among them upon their principles. And the latter is a Controversie of that importance, that each Side charges the other with no worse a consequence of their Principle, than Idolatry.

As to the former part of the description I have given of an Image (viz. That it's a visible representation of a Divine or Glorified Being) there is no dispute; but the dispute will be, about the latter part [viz. that it's set up for the receiving of Religious Honour and Worship.] For as our Author has avoided the word Worship all along, even to the omission of a Clause in what he quotes from the Council of Trent [Propter quam sint colendoe] so he seems resolved not to admit of it, or even so much as the external actions belonging to it.

[Page] For so he goes on. This then is what he [the Papist Represented] do's as to Sacred Images; and though his Adversaries, by calling this worshipping, adoring, and falling down to Images, raise a Notion of Idolatry, &c. So that it seems it is only a Fiction of their Adversaries, what they call so, but which they neither do in Fact, nor so much as in word, call by those Names of Worshipping, Adoring, and falling down to Images.

But if I prove that they use the words by which those things are understood, that they use such Actions and Postures as are conformable to those words, and that they apply those Actions and Postures to the Images, and that the Images are to be had and retained in Churches for that end; I think I shall have by that time done whatever is necessary to make good the abovesaid Description of an Image, and of what is infer'd from it.

As to the words,Concil. Trid. Sess. 25. & Catechis. ad Paroc. there are three used by themselves in this Matter, viz. Honor, Veneratio, Cultus. Which last I know not how otherwise to render, as distinct from the two former, than by Worship;S.C. Answ. to Dr. Pierce, c. 14. and so I find it rendred by one of themselves. And that it's so to be understood, is evident from the 2d Council of Nice, (which that of Trent in the same place appeals and approves to) where we find an Anathema against those [...],Actio. 1. that do not worship the Holy and Venerable Images: And so Pope Adrian, in his Epistle to that Synod, saith of his own practice, I adore the Images, &c. And that this is the Doctrine of both the one and [Page] the other Council, I appeal to many of their own Authors, (which I shall produce if there be occasion) who say,Suar. in 3. p. q. 25. Disp. 54. §. 1. that Images are to be adored: And Suarez for all saith, that it's de Fide Imagines esse adorandas, That it's a Matter of Faith that Images are to be adored. But as the Words, so the Postures shew it, it being an unhappy oversight of our Author's, who saith, That falling down to Images, is a Fiction of their Adversaries; when the Council of Trent is so express in it, that by the Images which we kiss, and before which we uncover our Heads, and fall down, we do adore Christ, &c.

But here our Author it's like hath a reserve: for will he say, the Thing that our Adversaries charge us with, is falling down to Images? but that I deny, for we only fall down before the Images, as the Council saith, but do not fall down to them. Indeed if this be his Refuge, it's fairly argued: but if this be his Sense, then what becomes of that other part of the Decree of the same Council, which requires, That due Honour and Veneration be given to them, [eis impertiendam]? And which ought to be kept in Churches, and are there set up that they may be worshipped, as saith their Catechism. ad Paroc.

But this will be further confirm'd, when, 3. I have shewed, that the Catechism he now opposeth, hath given no other account of the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome about Images, than is conformable to it. Against this, for the present, our Author objects nothing but [Page] the Phrase therein used of praying to Images. And here he runs again to his Resemblances, to the Monument, the Statues upon the Exchange, and the Giants at Guild-hall; to Rhetorical Exclamations, and Expostulations, with much piquantry against the poor Six-peny Catechism: But what is the haste to coast thus up and down the Town, to Westminster, to the Exchange, to Wapping and Spittle-fields, and where not? I perceive it will be too great a Task to follow him who sets no bounds to himself; and therefore to shorten the way, I shall 'ene lay my self open to him, and confess the Charge I exhibited against them of praying to Images. To prove which before, our Author saith I made use of this Argument, viz. Prayer is to the Object to which the Veneration is to be given; but the Veneration is to be given to the Image, as Representing, and so is the Prayer. And here he crys out Sophistry, and triumphs over it for near half a Page together. But is this Argument mine, or was it produced to prove the Papists pray to Images? Indeed I had argued that if they do not pray to Images, Why are the Prayers used at the Consecration of them? To what end are the Pilgrimages to them? Why do they direct their Prayers to them? But to this there is not a word of Answer, when in reason it ought to be expected, whereas he takes much pains to confute that which never was asserted. Had the Argument been (as he supposeth) to prove, that if they give Veneration to Images, they therefore pray to them; he ought to have been so ingenuous, as [Page] to remember, that the Catechism supposeth that the Terms Veneration and Worship, are in this case much one and the same; and that the Church of Rome doth Worship as well as Venerate Images (which now I have shewed my Reasons for): And this the line immediately before would have instructed him in. And if so, the Argument has so much Truth in it, that it will cost him some more time and thoughts to disprove. But to what shall I impute it, whether to oversight, or Sophistry, when he places the Argument upon a wrong foot, and from a Proof, that praying to Images in the Catechism, was to Images as Representing, doth translate it to a Proof of praying to Images because they venerate them. I am confident the Controvertists of Spittle-fields and Wapping, as little as I know them (the Reader will pardon the Phrase for it's his own) would not have argued more inconsequently, and those that have but stepp'd over the Vniversity-Threshold, (to use his words) would have call'd it an arguing à baculo ad Angulum: when what I say respects the Object, and he transfers it to the Act. But this it is to run impetuously, with much Fancy, and little Consideration, into the field of Disputation. For take the Argument as it lies, and I think it's fair and plain. For, if the Proposition is true, that the Worship (not Honour alone, that's his Insertion) given to Images, is to the Persons represented; then so is all depending upon it. For what is the Image, but the Image of the Person represented? What do they [Page] honour, venerate, and kiss? before what do they fall down? to what do they offer Incense, but the Image of the Person represented? And then, to what do they pray, but to the Image of the Person represented? For where the Veneration, the Salutation, the Prostration, and the Oblation are, there is also the Prayer. I must confess this way of arguing may prove too much for him; but that I cannot help, be it to them that lay down the Premises from whence the Conclusion is inferr'd.

But because he doth not like Consequences and Inferences (unless they are of his own making) I shall first of all put him in mind, that it has been proved by one,An Answer to the Papists protesting, &c. pag. 81, &c. whom he should in reason be acquainted with, that To, Before, and In presence of a Representative Object, as representing, are the very same. And to the solid Proof which that learned Author has given of it, I shall add, that not only do the Latins use those Phrases alike in that case, and so what in Pliny is, Imagini supplicare, is in Arnobius, ad Imaginem; but that these words are thus promiscuously used also in the Church of Rome it self: So in the Decree of the Council of Trent, before cited, what in one line is, iis impertiendam, to the Images, is in another, coram iis, before them. And that I may not be without some sufficient Proof, we have our Author himself thus speaking to and fro; for sometimes it's a Veneration before Images, Page 4. sometimes a Veneration to them, Pag. 3, & 5. And why I may not be allowed to use these words [Page] indifferently, that are indifferently used by them: Or, why To in praying to Images, should be worse than To in a Veneration given to them, I know not; unless what's right in them is wrong in me? But this praying to Images is a thing not to be born, it's to leave the Papists, their Credit, and their Doctrine to the favour and mercy of— But who is to be blamed for this? Why do they then in Terms pray to the Cross and the Veronica, &c? Why do they tell us of a Divine Presence, that is, if not in them, yet with them, as Tursellinus affirms of that at Lorreto? Lauret. Hist. Praef. Mirac. 120. Consrat. 7. dolor. Duad 1619.

Why do they write whole Books of the Miracles wrought by the Virgin Mary, and others Saints by their Images? Why do they suffer Persons to go long and tedious Pilgrimages to them? &c. Certainly it is as innocent for us to say, they give Worship and pray to Images, as for them to say, and to do it.

But because I am willing to conclude, I shall, in confirmation of what I have said, transcribe an old Form of Abjuration impos'd upon the Lollards,Spelman Concil. To. 2. p. 655. which is this; I do swear to God, and to all his Seynts, upon this Holy Gospel; and fro this day forward I shall worship Images with PRAYING AND OFFERING TO THEM, in the Worschop of the Seynts that they be made after. So that if I have erred, I have err'd with a Council, with their Breviaries, with the Decrees and Practice of their Church, and with approved Authors of their own. And if they stand right and justified in it, I hope I may be [Page] acquitted. Considering especially that after all that this Gentleman, (who has bore thus hard upon me, and used such a sort of Wit, and such Phrases and Modes of Speech, as are more fit for a Stage, than a Scholar and Divine) has transgress'd in the same way, and call'd our kneeling at the Lord's Supper, a kneeling to the Elements, or (as he calls it) to the Sacramental Figure, pag. 5. whereas he very well knows, or ought to have known, for the sake of a Passage, in the Preface to the First Part of The Papist Represented and Misrepresented, (if the Author be the same) that the same Church which hath required we should receive the Sacrament Kneeling, hath also declared, that no Adoration is intended, or ought to be done, to the Sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received. The Kneeling to, supposeth an Object of Adoration before us, and is an Act of Worship; but the Kneeling when, is no more than a devout posture of receiving it; and which our Church saith, is a signification of an humble and grateful acknowledgment of the Benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers. So that with as much Truth and Reason might he have affirmed, we Kneel to the Minister from whose hands we receive the Elements, as to the Elements we receive from him. Now if in conclusion I should return upon him the same lavish Rhetorick (not to call it worse) for his Misrepresentation of our Church, which he has treated me with, for what he can never be able to prove, is a Misrepresentation of theirs, I am sensible [Page] I should offend against the Laws of good Manners, and of the best Religion in the World.

And here I should take my leave of him, but that this day he sends me a Second Challenge, which as little as I love Disputes, I shall yet accept of; and do not question (but through God's assistance) I shall give him such Satisfaction as becomes a Christian, a lover of Truth, Peace, and Charity.

FINIS.

§

[Page]

[Page]

THE Papist Represented, AND NOT MISREPRESENTED; BEING In ANSWER to the FIRST SHEET of the Second Part of the PAPIST Misrepresented and Represented. And for a further VINDICATION of the CATECHISM truly Representing the Doctrine and Practices of the Church of Rome.

LICENSED, December 18. 1686.

LONDON: Printed for Ric. Chiswell, at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-yard, MDCLXXXVII.

Information about this book

Title statement

The papist represented, and not misrepresented being in answer to the first sheet of the second part of the Papist misrepresented and represented : and for a further vindication of the catechism truly representing the doctrine and practices of the Church of Rome.

Williams, John, 1636?-1709.

Edition statement

1687

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2005-12 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A66405

ID [STC]

Wing W2713

ID [STC]

ESTC R2047

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

12498092

ID [OCLC]

ocm 12498092

ID [VID]

62580

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A66405)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 62580)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 951:82)

Source

— The papist represented, and not misrepresented being in answer to the first sheet of the second part of the Papist misrepresented and represented : and for a further vindication of the catechism truly representing the doctrine and practices of the Church of Rome., Williams, John, 1636?-1709..

Extent

[2], 14 p.

Printed for Ric. Chiswell ...,. London :: 1687.. (Reproduction of original in Huntington Library.) (Attributed to John Williams. cf. BM.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.